Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (OBAN SOUTH PIER) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Scottish Development Agency (Oban South Pier): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Rating Reform

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has now received concerning his plans to introduce a flat-rate community charge in England and Wales.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information.

Mr. McAllion: In considering the representations, will the Secretary of State take time to reflect on his party's manifesto pledge that it would replace rates with a fairer system of local taxation? Will he also consider the constitutional reality that as he has been unable to convince even his own Back Benchers that the poll tax is a fairer replacement, the other place will be perfectly justified in amending his legislation so that it reflects, not the will of an embattled minority inside the Downing Street bunker, but the will of the real majority in England, Wales and Scotland, who are united in opposition to the unfairness of the tax?

Mr. Ridley: I remember the manifesto on which we fought the 1987 election as setting out clearly every aspect of our proposals for the community charge. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that is true if he takes the trouble to examine it.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, in the second Division during the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill the Government had a majority of 133. That must be a signal that more hon. Members are in favour of

the community charge proposals than it would seem from the Government's paper majority—if the hon. Gentleman takes the majority of 25 as meaning the opposite.

Mr. Squire: As the majority of the population will not be eligible for rebates, is it fair that the poorest should pay the same as the richest?

Mr. Ridley: We debated that matter on Monday. My hon. Friend knows full well that the poorest will not pay the same as the richest because of the very extensive and expanded system of rebates, which takes nine million people out of paying the full community charge.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the Secretary of State's comments on the radio yesterday about the role of the other place in this matter, and the subsequent revised advice that the other place can indeed consider both the flat rate community charge and other schemes, what representations does he expect to receive from the other place in the next three months?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied my comments on the other place, which were given not yesterday but the day before. I advised the other place that since the electorate elected a Government with a majority of 101 over all other parties on the basis of the proposals set out extremely clearly in the manifesto, I hoped that their Lordships would not feel inclined to change the principle of a matter which had been approved by the British electorate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reply to the Labour party's request for exemplification of its system of capital value rating and of local income tax as a means of financing local government?

Mr. Ridley: Yes. I have written to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) giving preliminary exemplification for the Labour party's proposal of a mixture of capital value rates and local income tax, on the basis of assumptions.

Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman's assumptions.

Mr. Ridley: I made those assumptions clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him to tell me whether any of them were wrong and, if so, in which way the Opposition would seek to change them. I have yet to have even the courtesy of a reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Cunningham: I have replied.

Mr. Ridley: I am talking about the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. As soon as I have a reply from the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I shall send a complete analysis, putting right any errors in the ones that I have already sent.

Dr. Cunningham: How does the Secretary of State square his determination to plough ahead with the flat-rate poll tax with the responses given by his colleagues, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in Westminster Abbey today to the questions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, launching the Church urban fund, when he asked:
What is he sending us to do?
The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Cabinet replied:
To share our wealth with those in our cities who are poor, powerless or disadvantaged, and to help them to build a new future for themselves and for us all.


How does the Secretary of State square that promise made by his colleagues today in the abbey with his determination to press ahead with the poll tax?

Mr. Ridley: By not imposing capital value rates and a local income tax on the people in whom the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Rates

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have notified him of their intention not to increase their rates for 1988–89.

Mr. Ridley: Fifty-one.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Sedgemoor district council is not increasing its rate this year, whereas Liberal-controlled Somerset county council is increasing its rate by an unnecessary 12 per cent.? Does he agree that this contrast is partly disguised by having a single rate demand that adds together the two figures? Will he change the rules and insist on separate rate demands from separate local authorities? It might cost more in postage, but it would bring a big benefit in terms of accountability and public awareness.

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is odd that freedom of information is Liberal policy except when it comes to telling the electorate by how much the rates have been increased. The answer to the problem will be the community charge. The new charge demand bill will set out extremely clearly the overspending or the underspending of the county and the overspending or the underspending of the district. Every charge payer will be in full possession of the information and will know why he has to pay too much, if he does.

Mr. Wilson: Would the Secretary of State care to calculate by how much the authorities in question would have had to increase their domestic poll tax if that system had been in effect when there was an interrelationship between the uniform business rate and the domestic sector of their income?

Mr. Ridley: I should not like to make that calculation on my feet, but if the community charge had been in place I bet that they would not have increased their spending by so much.

Mr. Devlin: How many of the authorities that my right hon. Friend has mentioned are controlled by one party, and what proportion of them are Conservative controlled?

Mr. Ridley: Of the 51 authorities to which I referred, 17 are Conservative and 28 are rate or precept-limited in one respect of another. The others are controlled by the odds and sods brigade.

Dr. Cunningham: As the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends are interested in rate increases this year, has he heard from the top 10 Tory district authorities in England with the highest rates? They are Gillingham, West Wiltshire, Melton, Suffolk Coastal, Wokingham, Dover, North Wiltshire, East Northampton, Havant and Stafford. All are Tory controlled, with rate rises of 42·3 per cent. in Gillingham, 41 per cent. in West Wiltshire, 41 per cent. in Melton, 39 per cent. in Suffolk Coastal, 29 per cent. in Wokingham, 29 per cent. in Shepway, the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, who is not here today, 26 per cent. in Dover, 25 per cent. in North Wiltshire, 24 per cent. in East Northampton, 21 per

cent. in Havant and 21 per cent. in Stafford. For good measure, Tory Lincolnshire is up by 14 per cent., Tory Kent by 12·5 per cent. and Tory Surrey by 10·5 per cent. What has happened to the Secretary of State's promise to the House that this year rates would not go above the rate of inflation?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not give the base from which those figures spring. He may know that Gillingham has, over many years, had zero rate rises.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scurrilous leaflet that was sent out with the rate demand by Derbyshire county council, which claimed that the council's spending since Labour took control in 1981 had hardly risen at all? In fact, its spending had risen by 69 per cent. Does not this false and misleading propaganda, which is sent out with a rate demand, add insult to injury?

Mr. Ridley: Derbyshire's rate for 1988–89, at 297·5p, is the highest of all county councils. I should tell my hon. Friend that since the Conservatives lost control in 1981, the council has sacrificed £50 million in central Government grant as a result of its overspending. That is a burden of £70 per head for each domestic ratepayer.

Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation

Mrs. Wise: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.

Mr. Waldegrave: The latest figure for England is 10,370.

Mrs. Wise: Does the Minister accept that the figure is still unacceptably high? Does he understand that the system means that mothers and babies must frequently spend their days walking the streets, while large amounts of public money are diverted into the private pockets of the owners of bed-and-breakfast establishments? When will he allow councils to solve homelessness by providing proper homes for rent?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the hon. Lady that bed and breakfast is the most unsatisfactory form of short-term accommodation. That is agreed between us and councils. There is a very wide gap between the use that councils of all parties make of it. For example, Labour-controlled Greenwich makes virtually no use of it, although it has acute problems. The hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the slight drop in the last quarter's figures, which is in response to the £25 million that we released to help with this problem just before Christmas.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be a very good start if, particularly, Labour councils stopped keeping council accommodation empty at the expense of homeless families in their areas? Would it not be a good idea for councils to put homeless families in such properties and not pretend that they do not have the money or the resources to deal with the problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. A couple of weeks ago we released another £28 million, which will be targeted on getting empty and void local authority properties back into use. We have had a very good response from local authorities bidding for such money.

Mr. Soley: If the Minister is so ashamed of the Conservative party's record, why did the Government allow the matter to get into such an appalling state in the


first place? Previous Conservative and Labour Governments did not allow it to get so bad. Conservative councils are complaining because they have to make use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Only 2·4 per cent. of council properties are empty, compared with 6·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties. When will the hon. Gentleman take this problem seriously, so that we do not have families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for several years, families breaking up, families in poor health and children under-achieving in education?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the gap between the performance of the best and the worst councils—and the worst, I am afraid, are run by the Labour party—is so dramatic that there is no need to keep families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for months at a time. That is a fact which many Labour councils know well and show very clearly.

Under-utilised Land

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of underutilised land, handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal, has not been sold after 12 months.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land has been handed over to the Property Services Agency by Government Departments for disposal and has not been sold after 12 months.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): As at 31 December 1987 a total of 2,558 acres of surplus landed property sites which had been passed to the PSA for disposal remained unsold after 12 months.

Mr. Bowls: Am I right in thinking that most of the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence? Will my hon. Friend confirm that I would be right in having confidence in his being able, with his usual courtesy and irresistibility, to persuade the PSA to put its delicate feet on the accelerator and sell off its land so that it can be put to good use?

Mr. Chope: Almost all that land is surplus defence land. It represents less than 0·5 per cent. of the total defence estate of almost 700,000 acres. About 1,000 acres are agricultural and are subject to offer back to the former owners. That process takes longer than a straightforward sale.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Property Services Agency is selling the land rapidly—at the rate of over 2,200 acres per year for the past four years.

Mr. David Nicholson: Should not that programme have an even higher priority? Does my hon. Friend recognise the paradox and the frustration that I and several hon. Members feel when we see controversy over housing development in the green field sites in our constituencies, but whenever we travel, as I did recently, to the west midlands or the Greater Manchester conurbation, we see vast tracts of derelict and under-used land, which is owned by a variety of authorities?

Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the amount of under-used land that could be brought into development, especially when it could be brought into

housing use. That is why the Government are giving a high priority to ensuring that they dispose of their own land quickly.

Mr. Steen: If my hon. Friend is, understandably, frustrated by the amount of land that is still on the register, will he explain why all Crown land is excluded from the register? Will he tell the House how many acres of vacant, derelict and dormant land in his own Department is not being used or put to good use?

Mr. Chope: Much of the land that we have been describing is on the register, although it belongs to the Crown. There is no legal obligation on the Crown to put land on the register, but, as a matter of practice, the Property Services Agency does include the land in the register.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister has stated the Government's commitment to dispose of derelict land and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) commented on the vast tracts of land in Greater Manchester. Is it not a fact that in Greater Manchester Labour local authorities have one of the largest and the best programmes of derelict land reclamation in Europe? One difficulty that frustrates us is that the Government have not provided the additional resources to maintain the type of activity that promotes the regeneration of urban land in both the public and private sectors. If the Government make that commitment, will the Minister increase greatly the resources available to local authorities which have such programmes so that they can develop them, in conjunction with public and private enterprise?

Mr. Chope: The Government are aware of the problems in Manchester, which is why we have given extra priority and set up an urban development corporation there.

Competitive Tendering

Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to set out a timetable for implementation of the provisions on competitive tendering of the Local Government Act.

Mr. Chope: Following extensive consultations, my hon. and learned Friend announced a detailed timetable on 30 March. The amendments to our original proposals should help authorities achieve the maximum benefits from the competitive process.

Mr. Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary for local authorities to wait for the timetable, and that as competitive tendering is a desirable development they should get on with it now on their own initative?

Mr. Chope: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, those authorities that have already submitted their services to competitive tender have substantial savings to show for it. As about £3 billion of expenditure is at stake in those services, the sooner local authorities put them out to competitive tender, the sooner the savings will materialise.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that local authorities are concerned about the possible extension of the Act to cover recreation and leisure facilities and that that would be harmful to the provision of sports facilities and many other amenities for local communities? Will he


now say that the Government are no longer prepared to defer that decision and that they will not include those facilities in the Act?

Mr. Chope: No, I will not say that. It is a complicated matter, which is why we have been in consultation. We are considering the representations that have been made. The principle that massive savings will be made by submitting services to competition applies generally.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on making the progress that has been achieved? Will he now give serious thought to the remainder of local government services and bring forward another list that features administrative and financial services, which have had the least exposure so far to competition?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right in emphasising that there are similar savings to be made by submitting administrative services to competition. I hope that local authorities will go down that road voluntarily, rather than our having to compel them to do so.

Crown Suppliers

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 25 March.

Mr. Dalyell: How is the public interest to be taken into account and how are severance pay and pensions to be guaranteed?

Mr. Chope: The public interest will always be taken into account in any privatisation project. Accrued pension rights will be fully protected, or transferred to the new pension scheme if the staff so wishes.

Mr. Hind: I hope that my hon. Friend will take into consideration the concerns of the Crown Suppliers' employees. Will he ensure that he listens carefully to the views of the unions that represent the work force? Will he ensure also that their pensions and terms and conditions of employment following privatisation are properly looked after?

Mr. Chope: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall take into account the views of staff. On a recent visit to Hastings, where the Crown Suppliers employ more than 100 people, I had a face-to-face meeting with members of the staff.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that many of us do not believe that savings will be available from this privatisation? For example, the Minister decided to have Richmond Terrace valued by private valuers at a charge of £40,000, when there were officials within the Department of the Environment who were capable of making the valuation for £1,200? Is it not true that the Minister lost the taxpayer over £38,000 due to the stupidity of his decision, which was taken as a result of his obsessive attitudes to privatisation?

Mr. Chope: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has his mathematics right. The decision that the private sector should value Richmond Terrace was taken in the best interests of government. It was the first time that there had been any new office development in the Whitehall area for

many years and it was important to obtain an expert assessment of the rental value and the opportunity-costs of the offices.

Mr. Boyes: It is clear that the Minister is not taking into account the views of the staff. Since his statement on the future of Crown Suppliers on 3 February, and the parliamentary questions that followed it, he has given neither trade unions nor the House any assurances about the future of the work force. Is the Minister aware that of the 171 staff who have requested a transfer, 138 have given privatisation as a reason for doing so? Given the low morale of the work force, is not the Minister's callous treatment of it utterly reprehensible?

Mr. Chope: No, it is not. Following the discussions which I had with members of the work force in Hastings, to which I referred, I understand that the work force has accepted that I am taking close account of its interests in this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Inner Urban Land Sales

Mr. Heddle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the number of acres of derelict and disused inner urban land sold by local authorities since the enactment of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1982.

Mr. Ridley: By 31 March 1988, 4,400 acres of land owned by urban programme authorities had been removed from the registers of unused and under-used land because the land had been sold. The first registers were compiled in 1981 under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), in compelling local authorities, statutory undertakers and the Inner London education authority and others to dispose of the land they have sat upon for far too long has been impressive? Will he acknowledge that since much of the land is in inner city and inner urban areas, the cut-off point of one acre for eligibility on the public land register is rather ridiculous and should be eliminated? Will he also acknowledge that the procedure that has to be adopted to obtain a derelict land grant is cumbersome and bureaucratic?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I confirm the importance of the programme, which is vital to inner city regeneration. There is still far too much land in the inner cities lying idle in local authority control. I shall look again at the one acre cut-off point that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is now possible to obtain a derelict land grant through the city grant, which goes straight from the Government to the developer. It may be helpful now that we have introduced the city grant.

Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that, with the growing demand for single person and pensioner accommodation, particularly in the rented sector, it would make sense to give local councils an increase in their


housing investment programmes so that they can utilise and buy derelict land in order to provide much needed housing in urban and inner city areas?

Mr. Ridley: Many councils own a large amount of land that they could sell to obtain further spending power to build houses. Instead, they prefer to hang on to assets.

Mr. Gow: As my right hon. Friend has made it clear that local authorities are still holding on to land that is unused or under-used, and as that is a massive waste of resources, will he take further powers to speed up the procedures so that when he gives a direction there will be a much speedier level of sales by local authorities?

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I must point out that in the Local Government Act 1988 we took such additional powers, and they will soon be available for use. They will be used in exactly the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister say why, over the past two years, the Department of the Environment has instructed only local authorities or ILEA, and no other public bodies, to dispose of land? Will he confirm that the land register does not include derelict and disused land in private ownership, including large tracts previously owned by the now privatised nationalised industries which have been taken off the register? Is he aware that a Town and Country Planning Association survey on waste land to be published this month shows that 62 per cent. of unused or derelict land is privately owned? What is he going to do about that?

Mr. Ridley: If it is true that only local authorities have received directives, it is probably the case that the other bodies concerned have been found to have a reason for not selling the land. I am not prepared to take a step to direct private citizens and private companies to sell assets against their will.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole procedure would move much more quickly if local authorities were compelled to grant appropriate planning permission and then sell at auction, without reserve, on condition that the work be put in hand within two years?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by granting appropriate planning permission. We would be getting into difficulties if we were to specify the use of the land for the maximum advantage of the receipt of profits to the local authority. The two issues of selling unused or under-used land and what planning consent is appropriate for the land are separate questions that should not be mixed up.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to review safety relating to the disposal of radioactive waste at inland sites in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The radiological safety of all disposals of radioactive waste in England and Wales is kept under review by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and authorisations are revised if appropriate. Other safety matters are for the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that many hundreds of my constituents are alarmed and concerned about the proposals to dump radioactive waste at a quarry in Billinge in my constituency? What information can the Minister provide about the type of materials to be dumped, how radioactive it is and what steps will be demanded of the owners of the quarry to ensure that no radioactivity will leach from the quarry into the surrounding water courses?

Mr. Moynihan: The type of radioactivity mainly derives from medical applications in the University of Liverpool and the Royal Liverpool hospital. The radioactivity of the material is approximately the equivalent of a microSievert, which is one thousandth of a milliSievert. In practice, one would have to consume about 2 per cent. of the thousands of tonnes of waste to exceed the annual dose of one milliSievert. It is a very low-level waste disposal facility. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution conducted a full radiological assessment of the site before issuing the authorisations. I understand the public concern, but public consultation did take place and there will be constant monitoring, which will include a close working relationship with the waste authority.

Mr. Holt: Notwithstanding the safety regulations, there is considerable concern in my constituency that the only potash mine in the United Kingdom may be turned into a dump for nuclear waste. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to say that all the fears and apprehensions in the area are groundless and that that mine will be kept for potash and not used for the disposal of nuclear waste?

Mr. Moynihan: I have no knowledge of that site. Suffice it to say that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and the need to stay closely under the authorisations provided under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, both ensure the strictest possible control. I shall look into the question of using the potash mine and let my hon. Friend know the precise position.

Mr. Frank Cook: May I refer the Minister to the consultative document issued by Nirex, which, as he knows, gives a range of options for public consideration and asks for reactions? The Minister will be aware that one option is missing, namely, the containment of radioactive materials which are produced on the sites of power stations at the surface, constantly monitored, and redeemable at source. Why has that been excluded? Will he ensure that it is included for future consultation?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member will know well that that is for Nirex to answer. No site has been ruled out. As for the Billingham site, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on other occasions, the Secretary of State has said that he will take into account the commitments made by his predecessors. It is a matter for Nirex to consult on the method and to make appropriate recommendations.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend comment on the emotive word "dump"? For decades we have been storing low level and intermediate waste in the said power stations. All the proposals of Nirex are to make what is already a safe storage system even safer.

Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Council Accommodation (Purchase)

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has made any estimate of private landlords' interest in purchasing council accommodation.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, although we know that a number of housing associations are interested in responding to any tenant interest that may be shown.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister agree that that answer is somewhat strange, considering how much effort the Department has put into encouraging private landlords? Can he explain how their involvement will benefit tenants? Will rents go down? Will the repair service improve? Will tenants get better value for money? In short, will the Government bring in legislation to force private landlords to give the same deal to tenants as council landlords would give?

Mr. Waldgrave: I think the hon. Lady is in some confusion. Perhaps she does not know, but any landlord will have to be approved by the Housing Corporation. Indeed, if tenants wish to transfer it will probably be because they will get a better deal on some of the matters that the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Mr. Forth: In considering the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), can my hon. Friend say how many council properties are vacant in, for example, Glasgow? Does he not believe that it is unlikely that private landlords would allow property to remain empty for any period and that, therefore, homelessness would be addressed much more effectively under private landlords than it ever has been under council ownership?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of my misfortunes is that I have no responsibility for Glasgow. It is noticeable that Glasgow city council—a council dominated not by the Conservative party but by the Labour party—has followed some very imaginative policies of devolving property to community-based housing associations. I believe that some tenants have found advantages in that system. The purpose of our Bill is to extend that very principle.

Ms. Ruddock: Further to the Minister's first answer, we in the London borough of Lewisham, particularly in my constituency of Deptford, are concerned about the interest of private landlords in our housing estates. Have there been approaches from private landlords about our council estates? Are the Government about to announce any programme for imposing housing action trusts on the borough?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is too early, and unwise, for private landlords to canvass on these estates, because there will be a thoroughgoing system of approval, run by the Housing Corporation, and of tenant involvement in any cases where transfers are of interest to tenants. It is unwise of private landlords to carry out this sort of canvassing before that system is functioning. Housing action trusts are a separate matter and, as we have said, we shall bring forward a shortlist while the Housing Bill is before the House.

Land Development (Planning Presumption)

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to repeal those

parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 which give a planning presumption in favour of the developer; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating and helpful answer. Does he agree that planning needs and environmental attitudes have changed fundamentally since the days of war-ravaged Britain in 1947, when that legislation was introduced? Does he agree also that today's planning law should meet today's requirements and, in particular, should take account of the fact that parts of the country suffer from over-development, not under-development?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and its successor, the 1971 Act, have stood this country in good stead. They can deliver the kind of planning that we need. It is true that requirements change from time to time. In 1980 the Department issued a circular emphasising the importance of getting planning applications agreed and reminding authorities that they must always grant permission unless there are important reasons for not doing so. Since then we have drawn the inspectors' attention to the importance of taking account of up-to-date plans so that there is no over-development.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister will be aware of the grave concern in my constituency about the Government's insistence that the Greater Manchester Residuary Body sell off parts of Reddish Vale. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that if that sale is pushed through planning permission will not be granted for any development that would deny the people of Greater Manchester an important area of rural land that could be used for recreational purposes? Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that that land will be protected for the walkers, fishermen and others who enjoy it?

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be wrong for me to pre-empt a planning application, which should be considered on its merits. I am sure that the important issues which the hon. Gentleman has raised will be taken into account at the proper time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas that have suffered from excessive development, such as Berkshire, the democratically elected representatives on the local authorities particularly resent the large number of appeals granted to developers, which give the clear impression that there is a presumption in favour of developers.

Mr. Waldegrave: There is a presumption in favour of development—that is the basis of the system. The British system is that people can do what they like with their property as long as an important interest is not damaged thereby. It is a good system. I remind my hon. Friend that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are for residential development and that there is a much lower success rate in such appeals. It is worth drawing that point to the attention of developers because, to some extent, they are overloading the system with appeals, the great majority of which will be turned down.

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many consultation meetings Nirex has held in Britain concerning its plans for radioactive waste disposal.

Mr. Moynihan: I have no ministerial responsiblity for the day-to-day management of Nirex, but I understand from Nirex that between the launch of its discussion document on 12 November and the end of March the company held 34 meetings about its plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility. A further nine meetings are planned to take place before the end of May.

Mr. Wallace: I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that one of the proposed meetings is with the Shetland Islands council. Does he appreciate that Nirex will be told in no uncertain terms that burial of nuclear waste on a small island is not an acceptable proposition? Does he agree that one of the ways of getting away from the problem of the "not in my back yard" attitude is to adopt the suggestion made earlier by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to have on-site storage? The Minister said that Nirex was consulting, but it is not consulting about that. Why is it not consulting about that when it is acceptable for high-level waste, but not acceptable for intermediate-level waste?

Mr. Moynihan: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that Nirex will be most grateful for advance notice of the content of the consultation meeting that is due to take place.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it was made clear after detailed consideration that Nirex should consider three options for a deep dual-purpose disposal facility—deep burial on land, tunnelling under the sea from the shore and disposal into the seabed from an offshore structure. That decision took place after detailed consideration of the potential scientific implications.

Mr. Jack: When my hon. Friend receives information from Nirex on those consultations, will he urge Nirex to make it clear to everybody that there are certain parts of the country with, for example, a strong tourist industry, such as the Fylde coast, which would not be suitable for the disposal of nuclear waste?

Mr. Moynihan: It has been made clear on many occasions in this House, and quite rightly so, that no area of the country should be excluded from Nirex's detailed consideration and investigation.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware, from the number of questions put to him today by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that there is considerable concern about Nirex's proposals. Will he tell the House when he expects the consultation procedure to be concluded and when he expects to receive Nirex's report on its proposals and to be able to tell us that either he or the Secretary of State can come to the House with a decision?

Mr. Moynihan: There are three questions and three answers. The consultative period will last until the end of May. Nirex's target for coming forward with a proposal is towards the end of the year and, obviously, a full parliamentary debate will take place as soon as possible thereafter.

Rates

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of increase in rates in 1988–89.

Mr. Chope: Domestic rates in England have gone up by an average of nearly 9 per cent., which is far too high. It should have been possible, on average, for rate rises to be held to inflation, and against this background the outturn is very disappointing.

Mr. Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the level of rates in Conservative-controlled councils compares with the level of rates in Labour-controlled councils? Does he agree that the great difference between those two levels explains the opposition of Opposition Members to the community charge?

Mr. Chope: I am delighted to have the opportunity to explain to my hon. Friend the difference between Conservative and Labour councils. Conservative councils have much lower rate poundages than Labour councils. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier quoted percentage increases. After those percentage increases, in Melton, for example, there is only a 5·8p local rate and in Gillingham only a 7p local rate, whereas in Harlow, a district council controlled by the Labour party, there is 92·9p local rate. There are almost invariably higher levels of rates in those areas controlled by the Labour party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister come clean about the Tory record on rates? In Labour-run counties in England, Labour has had an average of 12·4 per cent. rate income, Conservative-run counties have had an average of 10·3 per cent. and councils run by my party have had an average of 9·7 per cent.—in each case in councils controlled by a majority, single-party administration. Why is his party not at the bottom of any league table of rate rises in the counties of England this year?

Mr. Chope: The Owenites do not feature on this list—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Because they do not control any councils.

Mr. Chope: Exactly. The average rate poundage in the counties is 223p in the pound. The three highest county poundages are in Derbyshire, Cleveland and Humberside, all of which are in excess of 250p in the pound. The lowest rate poundages in the counties are under the Conservative-controlled councils of Hereford and Worcestershire, Norfolk, Kent and West Sussex. In all those counties the rate poundages are less than 200p.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour group on Lancashire county council increased rates by no less than 36·5, an increase of 18·5 per cent., which is one of the highest rises in the country? It started from a high base, having already increased rates by over 85 per cent. since it took control. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that places a tremendous burden on the National Health Service, industry and every citizen?

Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. Lancashire council is one of the worst examples of Labour profligacy in practice and I am delighted that she has been able to draw the attention of the House to it. Opposition Members are hard put to explain away the high levels of rates in Labour-controlled areas.

Mr. Rooker: If 9 per cent. is too high, why is it that in Tory-controlled Wandsworth the rate is 31 per cent.? Why is it 15·6 per cent. in the London borough of Barnet, where the Hendon, South constituency is situated? That is the Prime Minister's local authority and it is on record as being against the poll tax. What is more, it has accused the Secretary of State of cheating over storm damage. Why have we not heard about the London borough of Barnet, which has twice the average level of rate increases among councils under Tory control?

Mr. Chope: To take individual percentage rate increases—[Interruption.] It is much easier for someone who weighs 20 stone to lose 25 per cent. of that weight than for somebody who weighs only 10 stone. The same is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is difficult enough to understand as it is.

Mr. Chope: To take the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in inner London it is still true to say that the two lowest levels of rate poundage are in Kensington and Chelsea and in Wandsworth. In Wandsworth the local rate is now 36·1 p in the pound, in Hammersmith it is 133p, in Hackney it is 134p and in Greenwich it is 136p. The same is true in outer London, where Barnet council, despite a high percentage increase, still has a much lower rate poundage than most Labour-controlled outer London boroughs.

Housing Development (East London)

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will examine the potential for more housing development on derelict sites in east London.

Mr. Waldgrave: Yes, Sir. The Department is commissioning and announcing today studies by a consultant into the scope for housing development on five large areas in east London—the Greenwich peninsula, Barking Reach, the Lower Lea valley, the Stratford rail yards and the Beckton gasworks site.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging information. In the light of that, will he consider increasing penalties on developers who repeatedly appeal on green belt sites, such as in my constituency, so as to encourage them to turn their attention to developing inner-city areas to meet the housing needs of the south-east?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. On several occasions we have warned that we shall use our powers to award costs against developers who fly in the face of clear planning guidance, and I have no doubt that there will be some examples of that. The sites that we are talking about could conceivably, at a broad guess, contain about 20,000 or 30,000 houses.

Inner Cities (Sport)

Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss sport in the inner cities.

Mr. Moynihan: I hold regular meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council on a range of sporting issues. The specific issue of sport in the inner cities is the subject of a review which I have recently begun. The

membership of the review team is made up of business men, athletes and sports administrators, including two members of the Sports Council.

Mr. Pendry: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he discuss the poor provision for athletics in the inner cities, which must be a contributory factor in the importation of a South African runner, Zola Budd, and her acquiring British nationality in order to qualify for the Olympic games? Will the Minister stand by all those British athletes, many of whom come from the inner cities, who have toiled hard to qualify for the Seoul Olympics? Will he also back the IAAF's decision in the Budd affair and stand as firmly behind that decision as he did behind the Thatcher Government boycott of the Olympic Games in 1980?

Mr. Moynihan: The BAAB has upheld the Gleneagles agreement. The specific issue for its consideration with regard to Zola Budd relates to the IAAF's interpretation of "taking part". It is not a matter for the Government.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Sports Council and the British Amateur Athletic Board have done admirable work in the inner cities, but that the reputation of both organisations, including the board, will be greatly enhanced if they stand firm in objecting to the proposal by the IAAF to ban Zola Budd? Many British athletes would support the British board if it took that step.

Mr. Moynihan: I am sure that the BAAB will have heard clearly what my hon. Friend has had to say.

Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend not agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are listening to the hon. Lady.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that Zola Budd, far from being a poor little girl, as one Government Member said of her, is in fact a walking, talking and running public relations stunt for apartheid in South Africa? It would be a slap in the face for the hundreds of black athletes who run for Britain and the Commonwealth if the Government were not seen to support both the letter and the spirit of the Gleneagles agreement.

Mr. Moynihan: I strongly disagree with the hon. Lady's personal view of Zola Budd. As for the Gleneagles agreement, the Government are committed, along with Commonwealth countries, to uphold that agreement, which has nothing to do with the specific decision that the BAAB has to face on Sunday.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that no good will be done for sport in the inner cities or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, or throughout the world, if an innocent but very talented young athlete is treated in a disgraceful way by any international board when she has committed no offence? Is it not wrong, as we have seen with terrorism, to give in to blackmail?

Mr. Moynihan: The House has clearly heard the comments of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am always here when needed. May I ask the Minister to ensure that, in any discussions concerning Zola Budd, he will not repeat the Government's tragic mistakes of 1980 in respect of the Moscow Olympics, which has alienated international sporting opinion from this country ever since? Does he accept that the International Amateur Athletics Federation has an absolute duty to protect sport from any


taint of apartheid? Does he further accept that the Government have a duty to protect the rights of every other British sports man and sports woman taking part in this year's Olympic Games?

Mr. Moynihan: The right hon. Member knows full well that the decisions to be taken on this issue are a matter for the governing bodies. That must be right, and that view should be shared on both sides of the House. We need to await the outcome of the meeting held by the BAAB on Sunday and we shall carefully consider the situation then, to decide whether, so far as the Gleneagles agreement is concerned, it becomes a matter for the Government.

London Marathon

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had about the future organisation of the London marathon.

Mr. Moynihan: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had recent discussions on the future organisation of the London marathon.

Mr. Canavan: May I take this opportunity of congratulating the organisers, spectators and over 23,000 runners who made last Sunday's marathon the biggest and best in the world? So that it continues to be so, will the Minister use his influence with the London Residuary

Body to try to ensure that the organisers are given the use of county hall for just one weekend every year, in accordance with the parliamentary petition presented last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), with more than a quarter of a million signatures?

Mr. Moynihan: I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my congratulations to all who participated and assisted in the organisation of the London marathon. It was a showpiece festival of national and international sport, and it was excellent to see the involvement at élite and participatory level of so many disabled athletes.
I recognise the present uncertainty about the future of county hall. While the London Residuary Body is unable to give guarantees about the availability for the race next year, because county hall is being sold, I can confirm that the LRB, with any support that I can give, will do everything possible to impress on new owners the importance attached to county hall by the organisers of the marathon.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c

Ordered,
That the Local Government (Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 358) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Small Firms (Liberation)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove all administrative and legislative obstacles to the growth of small businesses.
I believe that this is the first time in the history of the House that a Bill has been addressed to Parliament with the word "liberation" in its title. There is room for many more such Bills. We have far too much regulation in this country, and it shackles the enterprise of our people.
You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why, given the amount of legislation that has passed through the House in recent times designed to help small businesses, I have tabled the Bill. No Government since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 has better understood the significance of property rights and markets in creating prosperity in our society. It is puzzling, however, that given the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young, the Secretary of State for enterprise, in wishing to remove obstacles to enterprise, the day-to-day reality of running a small firm is that for every obstacle that appears to be removed two more seem to be created, and small businesses still feel that they are often engulfed by the weight of legislation that they have to administer.
The Minister with responsibility for small business, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope), tells me that 500 small firms are created each week. That comes to the surprising total of 250,000 each year. Yet, if we examine the statistics of the VAT returns, we find that of small firms—those with a turnover of £100,000 or less—the number remains stagnant at round 2 million. So where do all these new businesses go? The sad thing is that many of them fail before they reach their third birthday.
High failure rate among small firms is of course inevitable. Setting up a business on one's own is a high-risk game. One's fate is no longer in one's own hands, but is in those of the customers. If they do not like what is on offer, that is the end of it. That is a natural part of business. What is not inevitable, and is unnecessary, is the amount of work that we pile on to small firms.
Perhaps I should say what I mean by a small firm. I mean a firm whose proprietor does most of the paper work. Fifty per cent. of the firms in this country employ fewer than five people, and those are the ones that I am talking about.
Such firms find that their most precious commodity is not money but time, and we rob them of that time when we demand priority for Government paper work. The hours that we make them spend on calculating tax for the Government, for example, mean that many of them do not have the time to get on with the work of making the business grow. It cannot be said too many times that small firms do not so much need more handouts and tax schemes as exemption from rules and regulations which constrict them and deflect them from their essential job.
In the 10 minutes at my disposal I want to confine myself to three areas which are critical and upon which the Government could act without major legislation. The first concerns the time when a business begins. Soon after it is set up it will find itself in need of an extra pair of hands. Naturally, it will want to engage that extra help in as easy a way as possible. It would rather use people in a flexible,

self-employed capacity—but here enters the Inland Revenue, which says that it cannot. Instead, it asks the business to set up a PAYE scheme and presents it with a 2½ lb starter pack consisting of two sets of tax tables, a set of national insurance tables, a blue card, a deduction working sheet, an employment record card, five assorted booklets and forms P15, P24, P34, P45, P46 and P47—in all, about 100,000 words to read and digest.
Faced with this penalty, it is not surprising that many proprietors of small firms will decide that they would rather struggle on and not take on the extra pair of hands. That is a tragedy, not only for them but for the country. It is well known that small firms will often engage people who are not well qualified for more formal jobs in larger businesses, and by deterring them we are adding to unemployment and possibly driving these people into the underground economy, not so much to dodge tax but merely because they cannot cope with the paper work that the Government demand.
My first proposal is that the Government allow small firms to engage up to five people as self-employed people, rather than having to set up all the paper work that is necessary for a PAYE scheme. It is then up to the Inland Revenue to make its arrangements with the individuals concerned. The second stage at which the business wants help would be when it begins to expand. At that point it needs more capital. I run a small business and I know that a good year's profits—[Interruption.]—leading on to another busy year, means that the money one has made in the first year is needed in the firm. But along comes the Inland Revenue with its tax demands and takes that money away.
If a stranger invests in a firm, he can, under the Government's enterprise scheme, offset up to £40,000 a year against his tax liability. I propose that small firms be allowed to retain up to £40,000 of their own profits to finance the next stage of growth. That is no different from the concession given to complete strangers and would have a dramatic effect on the expansion of small businesses.
My third proposal concerns the amount of legislation that this House churns out in the vain hope that we can reform human nature through regulations. I adduce two examples: the Financial Services Act 1986, which is currently causing many problems, and the Data Protection Act 1984, under which, according to The Daily Telegraph, prosecutions against many of the 100,000 small firms that have yet to register are about to be initiated. That would mean a fine of £2,000 for each firm, the slaughter of the innocents, because they failed to register—[Interruption.]—on time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a quiet hearing.

Mrs. Gorman: If 100,000 firms have not found the time to catch up with the legislation, that represents the biggest revolt against Government regulations in history.
Therefore, my third proposal is that all such legislation should have a lead-in time of two years, which will give businesses more chance to get their act together. Of course, many of them will still not be able to cope, which is a tragedy.
The Soviet Union has realised the value of small businesses. It is adopting a policy of perestroika, which I believe means enlightenment. Under that enlightenment, members of the KGB are now allowed to be self-employed.


There are more KGB personnel in Russia than there are self-employed people in this country. I do not quite know what lessons we can learn from this, but I do know that all Communist countries now realise the importance of self-employment and small businesses, and they are moving heaven and earth to get rid of the obstacles that prevent them from growing.
The Government should look into the problems that still remain for small businesses and get on with the business of liberating them from the tyranny of these regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Shaw, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. George Gardiner, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. David Davis, and Mr. Alistair Burt.

SMALL FIRMS (LIBERATION)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to remove all administrative and legislative obstacles to the growth of small businesses: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to the Conduct of the honourable Member for Edinburgh, Leith may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put any Questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Points of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to a communication that I received in an envelope in my slot In the Members' Lobby yesterday. I opened the envelope and found a communication that had been sent to me by a Kent Conservative Member announcing the closure of the profitable Matthew Brown brewery in Workington. I have not been able to locate that Conservative Member today, and therefore I am unable to name him in the Chamber, but he is a paid hack for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No hon. Member is a paid hack. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that comment. [Interruption] Order. Withdraw it, please.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been advised that I should say "salaried hack", but I know that that term would equally not be permissible. Therefore, I withdraw it and refer to him as a paid consultant.
My point of order is simple. Is it proper for a person who is paid by private industry to represent its interests in the House of Commons to use internal House facilities to send messages of that nature to other hon. Members? Indeed, is it right in principle that a Conservative Member of Parliament should announce to Parliament the closure of a profitable business in my constituency? May we have an inquiry into the incident?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Provided that that hon. Member has declared his interest in the Register of Members' Interests, it would be in order for him to put a letter on the board.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have said that, so far as I can see, it is in order. I cannot see that anything else arises.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps you will consider the matter afresh, Mr. Speaker. It might well be in order for the hon. Gentleman to have an interest and to declare it in the register, but I put it to you that it is not correct for him to use our internal systems to pursue that interest

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should have declared that in the correspondence as well as on the register. If there is any dispute about it, the right thing for the hon. Member to do is to take the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. James Wallace: Given the terms of the motion relating to the business of the House, will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that if the motion relating to the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) continues past 11.30 pm there will be no opportunity to debate the statutory instrument relating to community charges in Scotland? We want to discuss the statutory instruments and we should not give any further publicity than is necessary to the third motion on the Order Paper but should dispatch it quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct because the subsequent business is a prayer, which must end at 11.30 pm.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Are we to understand that hon. Members who are salaried by companies—of which there are many on the Conservative Benches—can now use the House's facilities to lobby and badger other people? It is appalling that Parliament's facilities should be used to promote the private interests of Conservative Members. If anyone is bringing the House into disrepute, it is Conservative Members who represent private companies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members regularly use the letter board. I have made the position clear.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that a few days ago Scottish and Newcastle Breweries gave notice of its intention to move from Workington to elsewhere to keep the company in being and to be competitive. Its name was besmirched by the hon. Member for Workington. He used phrases such as "the rape of Workington", "criminal bandits" and "industrial pirates". We must be fair and place on record the fact that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries is a Rolls-Royce company. It wants to remain in being, and to do so it must be competitive in a very competitive world. It is not right that hon. Members should use such language in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for me, but I often say that we must be careful about besmirching individuals—and we should not besmirch good beer either.

Later—

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter, but I am confused about what you said to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Perhaps you will confirm, in simple language, that motions Nos. 3 and 4 must be completed by 11.30 pm. Is that the implication of your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot get on to motion No. 4—Community Charges (Scotland)—until we have disposed of motion No. 3. We have just passed the business of the House motion, which limits debate on motion No. 3 to one and a half hours. To make it perfectly clear, if motion No. 3 continues until 11.30 pm, there will be no time for the prayer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely there is a way of avoiding this problem. Labour Members want to debate the prayer and vote in accordance with the views of our party. Surely it would be easy for the usual channels to undo the damage that has been done by removing from the Order Paper the motion relating to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Why should we debate that motion when you, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that Tory Members can line their pockets every day of the week by picking up directorships—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations about me.

Mr. Skinner: I have done.

Mr. Speaker: Then he must withdraw them. He must withdraw the allegation that I alleged that Tory Members were lining their pockets. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was not alleging that? Then we had best get on with the business.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance Bill

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 21

ADMINISTRATION AND PENALTIES

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 31, leave out 'and recovery'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Government amendments Nos. 44 and 47 to 49.
Amendment No. 137, in schedule 2, page 80, line 43, at end insert
'and for this purpose earnings shall not include income support or other social security entitlements'.
Government amendments Nos. 50 to 55.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 55, in line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
Government amendment No. 56.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 56, in line 11, leave out paragraph (e).
Government amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 73.
Amendment (b) to amendment No. 73, in paragraph 5, at end insert—
'(5) No attachment orders may be placed on income derived from any social security entitlement'.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 73, leave out paragraph 7.

Mr. Howard: The main purpose of the Government's amendments is to set out in detail the arrangements for recovering unpaid community charges, civil penalties and rates. These arrangements were foreshadowed in the Bill as introduced, and the new schedule does no more than to spell out the provisions originally set out in paragraphs 5 to 7 of schedule 2.
Broadly speaking, the enforcement of arrangements which currently exist for rates will be carried over to the new system, but with one important difference. In future, charging authorities will be able to attach a person's earnings to recover unpaid community charges.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the great majority of people will pay their community charge just as they pay their rates at present; indeed, by making payment by instalment the norm and by encouraging direct payment methods the incidence of arrears will be reduced. It is essential that local authorities have an adequate framework within which to enforce, where necessary, payment of the community charge.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify whether, when he refers to attachment of earnings, he is also referring to attachment of benefit?

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in a moment, if the hon. Lady will wait.
The provisions in the schedule are reasonably clear, and I do not propose to say anything further about them at this stage.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister agree from his experience of these matters that the practice by the courts varies from area to area as to whether they take the line of distress, attachment or imprisonment? Is he saying that it is proposed that in future the path to be followed will be the same in every petty sessional division and that a strict order of sequence will be applied?

Mr. Howard: There will be provisions that will lead to greater uniformity in future.
Opposition amendments Nos. 73(a), 55(a) and 56(a) seek to remove the power to commit a person for refusing to pay a community charge or a penalty, non-domestic rates or residual domestic rates respectively. Committal is not widely used: fewer than 400 people were committed for non-payment of rates in 1986. I am confident that considerably fewer will be committed after 1990 because instalments, direct payment methods and obligatory reminders will reduce the need to pursue arrears through the courts. Attachment of earnings will make it much more difficult to refuse to pay.

Mr. Pat Wall: If people are to have their earnings attached, many employees, particularly those in clerical and managerial work, might have difficulty in meeting payments. Their employers might use that fact as a judgment against them as employees and they could face dismissal. Is there any protection for such people who have their earnings attached?

Mr. Howard: I very much doubt that an attachment of earnings order would justify dismissal in accordance with the procedures of employment protection legislation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have any fears on that score.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister make reference to a couple in my constituency who have two adult teenage sons? Their current rates bill is £321·70. After the poll tax is introduced they will have to pay £1,460 a year—that is an increase in one year of £1,138·30. The lady works as a lollipop lady, so an attachment of earnings would take all her earnings. Would she be committed to prison?

Mr. Howard: The answer is that the notoriously profligate Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest should bring its spending under control so that the community charge for that area is at a reasonable level which all the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be able to afford.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister gave his reasons for believing that there will be fewer committals as a result of this legislation, but has he not underestimated one main reason why there are likely to be more committals, which is the unwillingness of people to pay the poll tax because of its blatant unfairness?

Mr. Howard: I do not believe that that will be a factor because, as I said a moment ago, the availability of attachment of earnings orders will make it much more difficult for people to refuse to pay when they have the means so to do.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that charging authorities have an effective sanction to back up the enforcement provisions. Committal has proved an effective final sanction over the years under the present system, and the small number of people who are imprisoned is a testament to the effectiveness of this power as a deterrent. Without it, local authorities would face a far harder task in collecting their community charge and rate income from those few people who persistently refuse to meet their financial obligations. Indeed, I wonder how local authorities would view the Opposition's attempts, through their amendments, to undermine the recovery system. I am sure that those who have to operate the system recognise the value of committal as a last resort.
It is also important that in those areas where residual domestic rates will be retained for a transitional period local authorities should be able to enforce payment in the same way as for community charges. It would be anomalous if a charging authority taking enforcement action against a person for failing to pay his residual rates and community charge had different enforcement powers available for each bill. It is also desirable that as far as possible there should be consistency in the enforcement procedures for non-domestic rates and community charges.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Department done any work on the number of additional people who will have to be employed by local authorities to bring about recovery? I have been told by Dick Knowles, the Labour leader in Birmingham, that it will have to take on 400 to 600 additional people—which, incidentally, is the figure for Lothian, too—to operate the poll tax. Obviously, not all those people would be involved with recovery, but has any assessment been made of the number of additional people who will be needed?

Mr. Howard: We have made a preliminary assessment, and we are looking at the various estimates that have been made by some of the local authorities concerned to find out whether we can arrive at a more accurate idea of what will be involved.
Amendment No. 137 and amendment (b) to the new schedule seek to prevent the attachment of earnings provision from applying to income from income support or other social security entitlements. We believe that it is important that there should be equality of treatment, wherever possible, between those who are in employment and those who are receiving benefit. Attachment of earnings will be available for defaulters in employment, and it is right that there should be parallel arrangements for income support recipients.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Given that the concept of income support is that it is a minimum amount of money on which people are expected to live, if there is to be attachment of income support, is it not inconsistent that those people will be expected to live at a level below that which the Government have defined as reasonable?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that income support will be increased to reflect the liability of those on income support to a residual 20 per cent. of their community charge liability.
It would be quite wrong if people whose benefit had been increased to help them to pay the community charge were able to avoid payment without being subject to the same sanctions as those in employment. The local authority will be able, as in all cases, to take distress proceedings, but, without some provision for attachment of benefit, the only sanction would be commitment to prison if distress proved ineffective.

Mr. Terry Fields: How will the Minister and the Government tackle the problem where an attempt is made by the Government to attach an individual's earnings, when he is employed by a local authority? He might, for example, be employed in Liverpool where we personally will be campaigning to undermine what the Government are trying to do with the poll tax. We are advocating non-payment of the poll tax. What would the Government do in such circumstances? That problem relates not only to people in Liverpool but to people in other major working-class areas where there is a Labour-controlled council.

4 pm

Mr. Howard: I have made plain what steps will be available to local authorities. I am sure that electors in the city of Liverpool, who will be voting in the local elections in a few days' time, will take careful note of the way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has pledged the Labour council in Liverpool to defiance of the law and illegal tactics. It is important that we place on record that the hon. Gentleman is nodding vigorously in support of the assertion that Liverpool council will engage in unlawful tactics.

Mr. Terry Fields: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that Liverpool would. I said that we, the activists in Liverpool, will be advocating that we have a policy that the Liverpool city council refuses to implement. We are campaigning on the estates, and we are campaigning at places of work, to offset what the Government are trying to do to working people.

Mr. Howard: The policy that the hon. Gentleman has been advocating is the policy that he advocates that Liverpool city council should follow. We know what great influence the hon. Gentleman, and those who think like him, have over the affairs of Liverpool city council. That is an important matter which the electors of the city of Liverpool will no doubt take into account when they vote shortly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)? For those who live in areas where the poll tax will be higher than average, but where income support meets only the national average of the 20 per cent. bracket of differential, will not such people be liable to imprisonment for non-payment? In the words of the Bill, they will be liable to imprisonment for "culpable neglect", on the basis that they have, in theory, the money to pay. In fact, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, they will not have the money to pay, because income support will still not meet the total bill which in their area they will be liable to pay.

Mr. Howard: Given the hon. Member's professional background, he must know that that is wrong; culpable neglect is not based on theory. Imprisonment apples only


where there is deliberate non-payment, and where the person has the means with which to pay. The hon. Gentleman must know that that is not based on theoretical considerations. When the matter comes before the court, imprisonment will be available only where there is a wilful refusal to pay by someone, who has the means with which to pay.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Howard: I will give way again. It is an important point.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. Does the Minister, therefore, mean that in areas where the poll tax is higher than average, where someone is on income support and has less money than they need to pay on the Government's assessment, they will in no case be liable to imprisonment?

Mr. Howard: Of course, that is not the case either. That will by no means follow, either from the question posed by the hon. Gentleman or from my answer to it. That is a different matter. It is something which will be considered by the court in each case and on the facts of each particular case.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Could the Minister clarify one matter, as I do not wish to misunderstand him on this important issue of the relationship between someone who is in employment and someone who is on income support? As I understand it, when three payments are missed, the whole poll tax for the year will become due. Is he advising local authorities to demand from someone the whole of the year's income support contribution, or is he willing to have the payments phased? Will he give advice in terms of a lesser payment than a full year's payment being due? If people get a bill for a full year's income support contribution, they will not know where to turn.

Mr. Howard: I am not giving local authorities any advice whatever on that question.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister put at rest one small problem with regard to the attachment of DHSS benefits, income support benefits, and other such benefits? Will the Minister be advising a level to the amount of attachment? As we have seen with attachment of earnings in the British courts, there is a great variation. What may cause people concern is that when benefits are attached, one may find that in one court they are attached to a rate of £2 or £3 a week, whereas in another court they may be attached at the rate of only 50p per week. Does not the Minister agree that guidelines need to be given to the court in that respect?

Mr. Howard: That is a perfectly reasonable point. There will be a maximum beyond which attachment will not operate as a proportion of benefit or income support.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister be able to tell us what that maximum will be? I am very worried about families on income support, who will get 20 per cent. of the national poll tax average but whose local poll tax might be higher than the average and who may have loans rather than single payments to pay back. They may have a £50 fine for failing to register. Without some knowledge of that maximum, how is that family going to pay?

Mr. Howard: I cannot go into further details on that matter at this stage. Those details will be made public in due course.
In order for charging authorities to be able to arrange for direct payment from benefit, it will be necessary for them to know about a defaulter's source of income. We intend to introduce a duty on people who are subject to a liability order to provide information about their source of income, including income support. That will be on the same lines as the duty in the schedule on those in employment to provide information about their earnings.
We also intend that people claiming income support at their local DHSS office should be invited to complete an application for the 80 per cent. reduction in their community charge to which they will be entitled. That will be passed to the local authority to arrange for the reduction to be credited to their community charge bill. Therefore, local authorities will have the names of the people on income support who will be entitled to the reduction.
We also intend that the names and addresses of income support claimants, who do not apply for reduction, should also be passed to the community charge registration officer. That will be a sensible additional source of information for the registration officer in ensuring that the registers are complete.
The provisions, as they stand, relate only to income from employment. For the reasons that I have given, we think that they should be paralleled by provisions relating to the payment of income support. We shall be bringing forward amendments to the enforcement procedures to give effect to that. Similiar provisions will be made in this respect for Scotland.
I shall be inviting the House to accept the Government amendments in this group, which set out enforcement arrangements for the community charge, non-domestic rates and residual domestic rates. I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments and those in the name of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, which seek only to undermine those enforcement procedures.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: We now come to an important part of the Bill. All parts that have been chosen for debate under the guillotine are, by definition, important. The Minister, in introducing the amendment, seemed to give the impression that the Government were tidying up matters that had been discussed in Committee. The fact is that Government amendment No. 73 is a new schedule of at least 4,000 words on enforcement, which was not in the Bill on Second Reading or, indeed, in Committee. We should not deal with this matter in the insensitive way in which the Minister introduced these draconian amendments, because the matter is much more serious than that.
The general issues of this debate are fairly wide, taking in enforcement, imprisonment and attachment of earnings and benefit, plus aspects of the administration of the poll tax. The last people with whom I want to have rows or difficulties are my hon. Friends. However, I say to the majority of my hon. Friends, who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, because on our side membership of the Committee was voluntary and not everyone who wished to serve on it had the opportunity to do so, that it is a fundamental misconception that an elected council can decide how it goes about collecting the poll tax.
It is fine for individual members of a political party, whether they are councillors or not, to advocate any policy that they like in a democracy. However, the idea that an elected council could advocate a policy of non-collection, non-administration or of slowing down the collection of the poll tax is a non-starter because under the Bill the elected council is not the body with the powers to carry out the collection of the poll tax. The person responsible is the local authority treasurer. A whole swathe of new powers go not to the authority, but to an individually named officer—not to the chief executive, but to the treasurer. In carrying out his or her duties under the law, that treasurer will be responsible not to the employing authority, but to Ministers.

Mr. Terry Fields: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend when I have completed this point.
It must be made absolutely clear that it is not a question of elected local government collecting its own local revenue and dealing with its administration in the caring and sensitive ways that are sometimes required and which are followed under the existing system. That will not happen any more because the authority will not have control over that officer—

Mr. Terry Fields: rose—

Mr. David Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to my hon. Friend before I give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), but I want to complete my point.
The idea of a council or of party members advocating a campaign of non-payment or slowing down the collection in some way, which under the Bill will lead directly to attachment, distress or prison, and then going back to the electors who have suffered that distress, attachment or prison and asking them to vote Labour again to support a Labour council will be an absolute non-starter. The elected local authority will not be in any position to carry out the mandate that is advocated by non-collection or slowing down collection. It is a fundamental misconception that the local authority is in control of that process. It will not be in control when, as presently drafted, the Bill becomes an Act, or in the form that it will be when the amendments are carried.

Mr. Terry Fields: What will the Government do to a local authority that tries to attach the earnings of an employee if that local authority does not comply with the provisions in the Bill? Can my hon. Friend conceive of local authority workers taking a conscious decision that they will not comply with the poll tax? If one is talking about Liverpool and electoral liability, despite the campaign that we waged in Liverpool, the local authority still has mass support. The council and its work force will stand up to defend the rights of ordinary working people, and we will still get their support—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not intervene from a sedentary position. They should try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. Rooker: The point is that the local authority will not be in any position to save its employees who take that action because control will be taken completely out of the hands of the local authority.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Rooker: No. I am explaining the position so that there is no misconception.
There are many ways in which the administration and implementation of the Bill will cause a complete and utter mess in local authority administration. The administration of the poll tax will not work in the way that Ministers intend.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to make this point absolutely clear. We are discussing some crucial and draconian additions to the Bill, for example, imprisonment, which was not originally an option.
4.15 pm
We must get out of our minds the idea that either as a political party or as individuals we can lead such a campaign. It will not be any good asking the local authority to be the long-stop because the local authority does not have the powers. We will not be able to sack the treasurer, tell him to slow down or to go easy, or deprive him or her of resources, manpower or materials, because, under the Bill, he or she can get those resources from the Government and not from the local authority. Treasurers will not be responsible to the local authority at council, sub-committee or committee level. That is why it will be so easy for the Government to blame local authorities for things that go wrong with the poll tax. However, the local authorities are being deprived of many of the powers that are needed to carry out sensitively the administration of this iniquitous tax.

Mr. Wilshire: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the powers about which he is complaining should rest with councillors so that they can openly encourage defiance of the law and can openly encourage an officer to ignore a democratically elected Parliament? Is he saying that he supports the policy of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)? Is the policy of the Labour party to defy democracy and stoke up rebellion?

Mr. Rooker: I know that there is national discussion at the moment about brain transplants, but I shall not give way again to stupid interventions such as that. There are no grounds whatsoever for making that assertion—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman will be sanctioned in any event by my hon. Friends because we will not give way to him again. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman sat through 150 hours in Committee, and he knows as well as we do that powers have been removed from local authorities and that it will be an individual employee of an authority who will have the powers. Therefore, the idea that there is any long-stop by the local authority is a non-starter.

Mr. Cohen: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that local authorities, and especially Labour local authorities, could say to their treasurers who, under the Bill, will be responsible for collecting the poll tax, "We are not going to give you any resources because the Government can give those resources"? Should not local authorities say to treasurers, "Go to the Government for those resources", because that would make the Government accountable in those areas?

Mr. Rooker: The Government will not give the treasurers any money. The Government will divert local authority money to give it to the treasurer. It is not a question of trying to gain extra resources because I do not think that it has ever crossed the Minister's mind that extra resources would be available. It will be the local authority's own resources that will be dealt with by Ministers.
The idea of prison was hardly referred to at the outset. Ministers originally wanted imprisonment as a long-stop. When the Government published the Bill, imprisonment was not even a remote possibility. Imprisonment would not have been available to any local authority treasurer or local authority. Although imprisonment is now included in the Bill, we have not had a satisfactory explanation of that.
Attachment of earnings should deal with most cases. Although there will be thousands of such cases, that method will be more practical for the administration because the idea is that the Government can get the money to the local authority through attachment of earnings.
There is also the question of distress. However, it will be difficult to enter a household in which only one person is not paying the poll tax and attempt to seize the television set because there will be an argument in the family about who it belongs to. This is a minefield. Nevertheless, there are sufficient powers to enforce payment.
If my memory serves me correctly, I understand that imprisonment is still not available in Scotland because, we are told, there are sufficient civil remedies that can be used in Scotland. We have never had a satisfactory explanation about why imprisonment has been brought forward on Report. There is also the argument that prisoners are not subject to the poll tax, providing they have been convicted and have not been found "not guilty", having spent time on remand, during which time they will be responsible for the poll tax. It is a farce.
The Minister has said that the only people who will go to prison are those who have wilfully refused to pay, having had the means to do so. Those are important words. I have paraphrased the Minister's remarks, but by and large that is what he said.
It will be argued by Ministers that those who have definitely had the means to pay are those on income support. It will be alleged that the money to pay the 20 per cent. was included in their benefit. We all know that provision will be made only for the average 20 per cent. poll tax. We all know as well that an average will mean that the poll tax will be higher in some areas than in others. Some of the really poor—those on income support and subject to the means test—will gain if they are in a low poll tax area. They will receive payment for the average 20 per cent. poll tax. Others, however, will lose. Those who are on the lowest incomes on which the House has said that it is possible to exist will end up being even worse off if their local authorities are in above average poll tax areas. That will he the position in many Tory-controlled local authorities.
This is not a matter of the political complexion of the authority. In effect, the Government are saying, "You will have even less than the current means-tested benefit because we shall give you only the average sum for the 20 per cent. poll tax."
This is an issue that will have to be determined by the courts. If a person does not have the means to pay the full 20 per cent. because he has received only the average sum and he happens to live in a high poll tax area, how can it

be held by the courts that he had the means to pay the poll tax? Surely no reasonable person could send anyone to prison in those circumstances. That is inconceivable.
This issue was never raised in Committee because it arose at the very time—virtually on the same day—that the guillotine was imposed on the Bill. We discussed attachment of earnings in Committee, and the guillotine fell when we started to discuss penalties. I am as guilty as any other member of the Committee because I did not ask about the attachment of benefit. The issue was not raised in Committee but it was taken up by someone in the Public Gallery, who talked to a Minister who was not especially pleased with the poll tax. A hint was given that there was a possibility of attachment of benefit. I estimate that there are about 4,000 words in the new schedule, and we can study it until we are blue in the face in an effort to find provisions on the attachment of benefit. Provisions on the attachment of earnings occupy one page of the schedule, and we all know that if an individual has earnings he must have an employer. That does not apply to anyone who is on income support or benefit. There is no employer and no earnings in the terms of a legal definition.
Paragraph 18, which is one of the shortest paragraphs in the schedule, reads:
Regulations under this Schedule may make, as regards the recovery of such a sum, provision equivalent to that included under Part II of this Schedule subject to any modifications the Secretary of State thinks fit.
Part II deals with attachment of earnings, and if someone does not have an employer the equivalent of earnings is benefit. We find in two lines towards the end of the schedule the link that provides for attachment of benefit. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected. I am stating my interpretation of the schedule on the attachment of benefit. I cannot find a link anywhere else.
This is outrageous and deceitful. Ministers are not prepared to write on the face of the Bill that attachment of social security benefit is a possibility under the Bill.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my earlier observations. I said that the current provisions relate only to income from employment. For the reasons that I advanced, I said that they should be paralleled by provisions on the payment of income support. I added that we would be introducing amendments to the enforcement procedures at a later stage to give effect to that. There is no question of deceit or an attempt to conceal.

Mr. Rooker: Ministers were aware of this issue when we discussed penalties in Committee, and they said nothing about it. It was leaked that they had already decided to introduce the attachment of benefit. The massive schedule that is before us, which covers more than seven pages and covers almost everything, does not make that clear. Today is the first time that any Minister has spoken about attachment of benefit. If such a provision is to be placed on the face of the Bill in another place, why has it not been placed in the Bill in the House of Commons? Why has it not been included? Am I wrong in my assessment of paragraph 18?
The last thing of which I would accuse the Minister is deceit, but it is deceitful of the Government to proceed in this way. They do not have the guts to make their position clear and to introduce provisions to give effect to attachment of benefit so that we can seek to amend them.


The amendments of the Labour and Liberal parties reflect only what we think the Bill means when it comes to attachment of benefit. We cannot be certain.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an article in The Independent on 26 February suggested that the Cabinet Committee had already come to a decision and that that information had been kept from the Standing Committee that was considering the Bill because Ministers feared a hostile reaction to the proposal in this place. We must deduce—we have no facts—that Ministers know that, if they produced the explicit proposal that those on income support, especially in above average poll tax areas, should be liable to attachment of benefit and potentially to imprisonment, they would face a massive and additional hostile reaction. That is probably why we are hearing and seeing nothing specific in this place.

Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), and I are rather inquisitive about the effect that the Government's proposal will have on Scottish legislation? This is the first that we have heard of the proposition. I hope that the Scottish position will be clarified. My hon. Friend will be aware that Scotland is one year ahead of England and Wales in this respect.

Mr. Rooker: The first I knew about the Government's proposal was when I read the article in The Independent to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. It was never discussed in Committee. We spent 150 hours discussing the Bill in Committee and we shall have a massive five-day debate on Report. If the Government introduce a specific amendment in another place, I believe that they will probably have difficulty in getting it accepted.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away on a point of absurdity. Surely he will agree that the important point is that the House should have the opportunity of debating the principle of the provision. Indeed, it has that opportunity. There are amendments that deal fairly and squarely with the principle. I have outlined to the House fairly and clearly the Government's intention in respect of attachment of benefit in respect of England and Wales. I said earlier that similar provisions will be made in respect of Scotland.
The Government have declared their intention clearly. It is absured for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to suggest that we have held back the detailed provisions for fear of a reaction. I have stated clearly the Government's intention. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) must know that it has not proved possible to introduce amendments in this place on all matters in respect of which we have clearly declared our intentions. There are some matters in respect of which it will be necessary to bring forward amendments in another place. The important thing is that the Government should declare their intention on this matter, which I have done, and that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the principle, which it will have.

Mr. Rooker: The length of that intervention proves my point. It is as simple as that. As the Minister knows, the House will probably not have an opportunity to vote on anything other than Government amendment No. 43 because the Bill has been guillotined. The chance of having anything other than a symbolic vote on this group of amendments, to which we object, is remote.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job for the Opposition. I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Act has no provision for going directly to income support payments. The Secretary of State for Scotland has 29 amendments that will go through on the basis of this Bill. It may be excusable for the dodos in the Department of the Environment who have not gone through the process, but it is inexcusable for the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the eve of elections in Scotland where the flagship is already on the statute book, not to have the guts to come forward with the provisions that the Minister for Local Government is asserting will operate in Scotland. Let us discuss those provisions on the Floor of the House before the May elections so that people in Scotland may know of the additional imposition in this noxious Act.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend deserves an answer to that point at some time. I shall move on because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on this aspect of the Bill.
Most of my other points can be put in the form of questions because they relate to the part of the Bill covered by the large group of Government amendments. Before the close of the debate, may we have clarification about the right of poll tax payers to pay by instalments? It is not clear from schedule 2, paragraph 2(2) (b), whether those with small bills—probably those on maximum rebate—will have the right to pay by instalments. We know that the regulations—much of the Bill will be administered by regulation—under schedule 2, paragraph 2(2) (b), will make payment by instalments the norm. There is no doubt that that will apply to the general population. That will lead undoubtedly to a massive increase in transactions. Many people now pay their rates in two halves, which they are entitled to do. I suspect that a few pay in one go. I know for a start that that will lead to a tenfold increase in transactions in Birmingham. Has the Minister or his colleagues had discussions with those who run the banking system in this country? The increased number of transactions will be gigantic and we should like to know whether the banking system will be able to cope.
The refusal of our constituents—that may be too strong a word—the non-co-operation of our constituents even to supply information, let alone pay the poll tax, can lead to a penalty—not a fine—of £50 imposed by the local treasurer. It will not involve going to the magistrates court to obtain a court order to impose the penalty. After a lack of co-operation the first time, a £200 penalty will be charged the second time.
We debated that aspect briefly in Committee because there was always the threat of the guillotine. I return, without apology, to the part of the Bill that used to be known as clause 5(7). It is now clause 6(8), which, deals with the setting up of the register. Clause 6(8) gives the registration officer a
duty to compile and maintain a register in accordance with this Part".


It also includes the duty
to take reasonable steps to obtain information for that purpose under the powers conferred on him.
That gobbledegook needs to be translated into plain man's English or Brummie English. Under regulations a local authority treasurer in England will be entitled to decide for himself—the authority of his council will not matter—that he will introduce a personal identity number made up from the date of birth and the initials of a person's name. If people then say, "Hang on a minute. The Minister has repeatedly said in Committee that it is not necessary to have numbers and dates of birth in Scotland or England in order to run the system and we will give our name and address and a promise to pay the poll tax but nothing else", he can fine them £50. If they refuse a second time, he can fine them £200. That can be imposed without people having an opportunity to go to court and argue the case. It will simply be added to their bill. Has the Minister given any more thought to that?
Is it proposed that applicants for income support or a means-tested benefit will be given, at the time they apply for income support, a poll tax rebate application form? I want to know whether that is proposed anywhere in the Bill or in regulations. If people refuse to fill in the poll tax rebate form, that will be taken as an indication of the fact that they are probably not registered for poll tax and the Department of Health and Social Security will then be obliged to report them to the poll tax registration officer. It has been put to me that that is proposed in the swathe of Government amendments. I cannot find it, and I should like to know whether that will be the case.
Will it be proposed that court procedures should be used for the arrestment of benefit—that is the case with wages—with the result that the benefit claimant will also be hit with legal costs? That point has to be taken on board. It has been suggested to me that that threat from the Department of the Environment is designed to encourage the DHSS to co-operate in deduction at source. It would be much cheaper and administratively convenient to put the 20 per cent. poll tax in income support and then deduct the poll tax at source. That would be much cheaper than chasing up the poor people who have to survive, under this Prime Minister, by sleeping with foil under their bedclothes. Is it intended to use the courts for the arrestment of benefit, and is that being used as a threat by the Department of the Environment to force the DHSS to co-operate?

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem if a man whose wife is working leaves his job and is deemed not to be entitled to unemployment benefit? If the wife continues with her job, he would not receive any benefits. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me what will be attached in his case.

Mr. Rooker: I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they would attach her earnings. Joint and several liability comes into operation and she is responsible. He has no income because, under the means test, her earnings put them above the level. Therefore, she is responsible for both poll taxes, and if she does not pay his full poll tax they will attach her earnings. We have had that drummed into us by Ministers who have made it clear that the poll tax is not an individual tax with universal accountability. Joint and several liability destroys the concept of universal accountability.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps my hon. Friend could assist me further. What happens if the parties have separated because of a domestic row but there is no court order and no legal separation? Is the separated or perhaps the deserted wife also expected to pay her husband's poll tax liabilities?

Mr. Rooker: Not if he is not living in the same household. We discussed in Committee that a couple might live under the same roof but not in the same household. Many of us in our surgeries hear about such situations where by all criteria a couple may be under the same roof but not in the same household. We were told in Committee that, if that could be proved, joint and several liability would not operate. We are creating a minefield. Who is to decide whether, for the purpose of attachment of benefit or earnings, a couple are in the same household? It is ludicrous and frightening. The problems that are likely to arise frighten me.
We cannot under the guillotine do justice to all the matters referred to in the amendments. I apologise to the House for having taken so long. I wanted to speak about warrants of commitment. I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who will reply for the Opposition, to deal with that if time permits. We think that the Government's proposals are outrageous. We shall divide the House on principle because we are opposed to the concept of what the Government plan in this group of amendments.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is a shrewd parliamentarian. If I remain a Member of Parliament for as long as he has been a Member, I hope that I shall become as adept as he is at operating in the wilderness of mirrors that represents Labour party policy. I sat in Committee for 147 hours with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He told us that he had not been prepared to come to the Second Reading debate without a policy, or to the House of Commons unclothed, but he is still unclothed and without a policy. On Monday he found my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) bathing in the pool of self-indulgence. The hon. Gentleman promptly stole his clothes and is now sliding into the waters of political opportunism.
Once again the hon. Gentleman has regaled the House with an incredible speech. He spent the larger part of it lecturing my hon. and learned Friend about his duty, although my hon. and learned Friend has made his intentions absolutely clear. There is no intention to disguise anything from Parliament, and the hon. Member for Perry Barr spent the greater part of his speech erecting a great fabrication. His voice rose with false anger. The real thing that he was trying to hide from the House was the comment made by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has left his seat, but he, backed by the hon. Member for Broadgreen, advocated a policy of civil disobedience. I am glad that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is listening. Will he dissociate himself and the Labour party from that policy? I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: There is no doubt about it. We have made it clear that we are in favour of obeying the law, even though we oppose it and will repeal it at the first opportunity. We will not co-operate in its implementation,


but the money has to be collected to pay the salaries of local government employees. The point I was making was that it is not within the competence of a political party to advocate non-compliance in the hope that the authority can obey that policy, because the authority is not in charge. I pointed to the contradiction in doing that, leading to people having their earnings attached, being arrested and ending up in prison, and then going round at the next local elections asking people to vote Labour. That is not on.

Mr. Leigh: We are back to the wilderness of mirrors. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say in plain, simple language, which the electorate can understand, that Parliament is supreme, that he may not like what Parliament is doing, but that Parliament has a right to legislate and that Liverpool and the London boroughs have a duty to carry out what Parliament wants. The hon. Gentleman is hiding behind the false screen which he has erected that local authorities have no discretion in the matter. Local authorities always have a certain amount of discretion to carry out not just the letter but the spirit of the law. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he is prepared to condone action by the Labour local authorities to thwart the spirit of the law.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman cares so much about respect for the law and the authority of Parliament, his hon. Friends should have refrained from carrying out the Scottish legislation. They paid no heed to what they were doing in Scotland. In some respects they realised what they had done only when the matters came up in the English legislation. It would help people to have more respect for Parliament if, when replying to questions from Opposition Members, the Government gave honest replies and did not attempt to deceive the House and the people.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) may make his point now; I see that he is on his feet.

Mr. Barnes: Is there not an unholy alliance between the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), in that the proposal that there should be imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax was introduced in Committee by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and withdrawn when there was agreement from the Minister that an amendment would be tabled? The hon. Gentleman introduced a proposal that would have produced a martyrs' charter. People would have used it against entirely unjustified legislation. The hon. Gentleman should examine his position as well as discussing that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen.

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened. Only this week I read in the Market Rasen Mail that he had told the local Labour party that I wanted to put people in prison and that in Committee I had

proposed an amendment for that purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am delighted to have the opportunity to put matters into their proper context.
On behalf of the Rating and Valuation Association, in which I have no financial or other interest, I suggested to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that the present rating legislation contains a last ditch device by which local authorities can commit to prison people who wilfully refuse to pay their rates, despite the fact that they have the resources to do so. I did not propose any amendment. The Minister simply said that that was right. He proposed to bring forward his own amendment on Report. Those are the facts.
I want to return the point to the hon. Member for Broadgreen. Is it not profoundly anti-social and anti-socialist that people who have the means to do so but wilfully refuse, for any reason, political or otherwise, to pay their dues to society should get away with it? Is that what the Labour party wants?

Mr. Chris Mullin: Under the legislation, who will decide whether someone has the means to pay?

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman, like myself or the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), had spent any time in magistrates courts he would know that magistrates do not send to prison for non-payment of rates people who do not have the means to pay. They imprison only those who wilfully refuse to pay. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is in his seat. He is an experienced lawyer. If I am misleading the House, he should rise and say so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that interventions only take up the time of other hon. Members. In deciding who should catch the eye of the Chair, the Chair will take into account those who intervene.

Mr. Leigh: I draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that when the glossy packaging is taken away there is revealed the true nature and the militant heart of the Labour party—resist Parliament, resist democracy, and resort to civil disobedience.

Mr. Bermingham: I did not rise to the bait of the trite intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). The hon. Gentleman should know, if he casts his mind back to his days in the magistrates courts, that the magistrates did not always examine in depth the ability to pay and wilful refusal to pay. Regrettably, a person who could not keep up the rate of repayment ordered was incarcerated.
I was amazed that the Minister for Local Government, who is an honourable and learned man, had forgotten so much about the court system. He is in a world of unreality.

Mr. Howard: I never knew as much about the courts as the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bermingham: That means that the Minister knew nothing at all, because I know precious little.
For years we have been trying to take imprisonment out of the system of enforcement of payment of civil debt. The prisons, rotten as they are, do not have room for the people who will fail to pay their poll tax. One can imagine the conversation between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary. The Secretary of


State for the Environment would say, "We have a measure into which we shall put a penal clause. Is there any room in your prisons?" The Home Secretary would reply, "No, I do not have any room." It will cost more than a whole year's poll tax to keep a person in prison for only a week.
Why must there be this penal clause? The Minister has said that only 400 people went to prison last year for non-payment of rates. He should not mislead the House. Many more people will be liable to pay the poll tax than were ever ratepayers. Many more poll tax provisions than domestic rates provisions are the subject of penal sanctions, Many more people will be involved under this legislation.
The new schedule is iniquitous. We have already seen the beginning of the problems. There is stage one: if a person does not pay, the authorities will try distress warrants. Local authorities throughout the land are levelling distress warrants against ratepayers who do not pay their rates. In stage two, there will be attachment. One can understand that system being applied if a person is in work, but there is a problem, which the Minister has either forgotton or about which he or his advisers do not know enough. There is great variation in the petty sessional divisions. The way in which people are treated by magistrates varies enormously depending on whether they live in a shire county or in an inner city area. I have known magistrates in the shire counties who think it rather a joke that a person has not paid his rates, so they levy payment at about £1 a week. I have seen persons sitting in judgment in inner city areas order payment of £5 a week out of the £25 a week, or whatever, received by the unemployed. That is vicious. Will there be guidelines on the way in which the poll tax is to be levied? There may be a high poll tax in one area and low tax in another. How will the deductions be made?
There is the other side to the coin: social security benefits will be the subject of deduction. I raised the same matter recently in respect of fines imposed by the courts under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill. The Home Office people told me that social security payments cannot be attached to recoup fines. As the House will be aware, our prisons are full and we have been trying to get fine defaulters out of prison. Apparently that cannot be done by those means. Why can benefits be attached for non-payment of the poll tax but not for penal fines?
Will the Minister confirm his undertaking in respect of people in prison on remand? Apparently, if they are convicted, they pay no poll tax but if they are acquitted they are liable to pay it. These days people are in prison on remand for so long that it may be cheaper for them to plead guilty, and not have to pay the poll tax, than to plead not guilty, be acquitted and pay the poll tax. That is absolute lunacy.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the position of a wife whose husband lost his job. This legislation is becoming a lawyer's paradise, and I declare my interest as a barrister. Can hon. Members imagine a court of law and a matrimonial dispute when one of the wife's complaints, which led to the husband being thrown out, was that she had to pay his poll tax because he had lost his job, and he had clocked her one? Where on earth are we going? We have created a legal minefield.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The minefield becomes even greater because, after the wife has

left the man—because he clocked her one for what he did or did not do with the poll tax—she will still be liable for his poll tax because of joint and several liability.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a useful point, which I shall not pursue, lest I make a remark that will get me into even more trouble. We all know the problem.
It was fascinating to turn over the pages of amendment No. 73 and find the charging orders in paragraph 8. Oh, how sweet. There is a lovely get-out if a person owns his house. There is no need to bother with attachment of earnings—tell the boss not to bother—and no point in sending the man to prison. Instead, a charging order can be put on the property. For those with properties, there is no imprisonment. For those who do not have properties, there is imprisonment. For those with properties, there is no imprisonment. Are we not a sweet little nation and do we not have a sweet little Government?
When one is at the bottom of the pile all the worst things happen. What about those a little further up the pile? What about the percentage of home ownership? What happens if there are tenants in common, co-owners who are not married? The house is to be charged, but against which share? How is the charge levied? Does that put a block on the person who is not liable for the charging order? Again, there is a lovely minefield for the lawyers. It has been created, regrettably, by a Minister who is a lawyer but who said that he did not know as much about it as I do.
I have had only the time since the amendments were published to look at them. I have mentioned just a few of the little problems that I found in the new schedule. When the real professionals get at it, they will create a morass of questions. Once again, the Government will have rendered a piece of legislation a litigation paradise but will have done nothing for the ordinary person. The penal clauses can be summed up beautifully: a person with a house and a job will not go to gaol. However, when a person has a rented place and not much furniture and he is at the bottom of the pile, may not have a job and may be on benefit, the authorities will not waste a moment on him. They will not go to that expense and trouble. Magistrates courts are inconsistent. That is why I ask the Minister to produce some guidelines for consistency, because they will not bother. They will just lock a person up.
Then the silly situation will arise as a result of which it will cost more in a week to keep someone in a police cell—because the authorities will have run out of prison places, as they always do—than it would cost to collect the poll tax off that person for two or three years. At the moment, it costs £1,000 a week to keep a person in a prison cell.
Perhaps the Minister will have the courage to take away Government amendment No. 73, bury it and come back. with some better ideas.

5 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to start exactly where the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) left off, but I shall address my remarks to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) because it seems to me that there is no logic in the Government's proposals. Yesterday the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle argued that, whatever else we did, we


should seek to be logical and consistent. As he is a lawyer, I ask him to think about the logic of the proposals before us.
According to the logic of the Government's proposals, there will be three penalties for people who do not pay. First, one's earnings may be attached; secondly, one's goods may be the subject of a distress warrant and may therefore be sold; thirdly, and most severe, one may be sent to prison. We are grateful that the Minister has made it clear that he intends that the amendments ensuring that those penalties will apply to all people, whether earning a wage or receiving benefits from the state, will be part of the Bill.
When the Bill was originally published, it did not refer to imprisonment. Imprisonment for non-payment of the poll tax does not apply in Scotland. However, imprisonment will be imposed on anyone, unless the amendment tabled by the Labour party or that of my party is accepted. It will be up to the courts to decide who will be imprisoned. Given the injustice that will follow, all hon. Members should think carefully about whether to support the amendments even if a schedule has to be brought into the Bill.
Although I do not like the implications, especially in respect of the schedule, it is not as bad as it might have been. When the matter was raised in Committee—the Minister, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle and others will know that I was not a member of that Committee because I was sitting on the Housing Bill Committee at the time—it was originally proposed that, in some cases, no discretion should be available to the courts. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on that point was debated. At that stage, it was conceded that discretion should be available for the courts, so that there would be a more flexible approach towards those who default. That is right because justice must always be tempered with mercy by those who administer it. That system allows judges, not juries, to pass sentence in this country. We all want to uphold that system.
I intervened in the Minister's speech on the matter of phraseology. There has been a change and a penalty will be available if it can be shown by the prosecuting authority that non-payment is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The problem is that the illogicality remains. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South was right. The earnings of those who earn a wage or salary can be attached. They will not go to prison because there will be no need. The money will be recoupable by an attachment order. For those who have property, that property can be taken away. They will not need to go to prison because the less severe remedy will be available to those seeking to enforce it. Who will be likely to face the reality of imprisonment? It will not be the person who is earning, even if he is not earning much. It will not be the person with property and goods, even if they do not amount to very much. It will be the person who has neither.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know that people who have no goods, no regular income, apart from that provided by the state, and often no home

appear in the courts throughout the country every day. They appear regularly on all sorts of charges in magistrates courts and they are often queuing up to be dealt with first thing in the morning, having spent the night in a cell.
Those people will inevitably face imprisonment because they have no earnings that can be attached and no goods that they can hand over. Those people will be liable to go to gaol. Who will the bulk of them be? They will be the people on the most pathetic incomes and those with no homes. The homeless will face imprisonment in the already overcrowded prisons. Those who are least likely to be able to contribute will be sent to prison as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: That is an important point and, if I put the wrong reflection on it, perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will correct me. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is not to catch that sort of person with no means. The Bill aims to catch, for example, a company director who wilfully refuses to pay rates and puts property into the hands of his company.

Mr. Hughes: That is an important point, but the facility to deal with the company director is there. The attachment of earnings ability is there. One can deal with somebody with a large amount of money or three homes—the Minister appears to think that many of us have three homes—by dealing with their goods. The company director can be dealt with. There must be a backdrop if, for some reason, the company director manages to avoid anybody paying him anything in a visible or tangible way.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
The people who will be in the front line, because they have no earnings to attach and no goods on which a warrant of distress can be executed, will be the homeless. They will be locked up. It is a funny way to solve the crisis of homelessness in Britain by putting people in prison.

Mr. Boateng: Given the Government's great difficulty in catching, convicting and sending to prison any company director for insider trading, is it really likely that they will be able to capture and imprison one for evading the poll tax?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a generally well-agreed and self-evident point. The Government increasingly add laws to penalise people with the least money. The people who escape most and have most left to play with financially are those with most money.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the sanction of imprisonment will not be used to pursue a poor person who is unable to pay? The courts would not take the view that that was a proper thing to do. The sanction of imprisonment would be used for somebody who wilfully refused to pay, even when he had the capacity to pay, and who, having had the money, loses it in some way and wilfully defies the law. That is the point of that ultimate sanction. It is likely to be used only in those circumstances. Those are the only circumstances in which it is used currently.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman would be right if the only definition given by the Government was wilful neglect or refusal, but that is not the case. The definition also includes culpable neglect.
In an earlier intervention, the Minister said that amendments will be introduced to allow an attachment of earnings to be made in respect of people who are entirely dependent on income support. My borough will pay a higher than average poll tax, as will many other boroughs and some districts. There will be a gap between the amount my constituents receive in income support and their poll tax bill because they will get at most an 80 per cent. rebate and then the average amount of the differential rebated and paid to them. They will not have money from the state to pay their bill. That is all they will receive because the social security system will provide them with no more.
The Minister refused to say that in those cases the court could not send those people to prison because of "culpable neglect"—the Government's phrase from earlier legislation. The Government want to go after those people—this was clear from the leak in The Independent on 26 February—because they are terrified that if people on income support do not have their income attached, they will use the money from the state for other purposes—for example, to pay an electricity or gas bill. So those people are liable to be guilty of culpable neglect and to go inside. That is the inequity of the system.
There is no guarantee that somebody who has not a penny piece left of the income that the Government—the meanest to the poor in my lifetime—say is the minimum necessary to survive will not go to prison because he cannot afford to pay the poll tax.

Mr. Butterfill: Can we surmise what may be meant by "culpable neglect"? If a person receives money in social security, repeatedly uses it on beer and betting shops, and time and again does not pay his bill because he has wasted the money, what do we do to bring home to him the reality that something must be done about that conduct?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not be drawn down that road. When our society has finished dealing with the money wasted on beer, betting shops and the rest by people on enormous salaries, it can turn to those who have £30 a week to live on. Then we can see whether we can act as judges on their spending.
The provision is clear. Apparently, the Cabinet Committee decided in February that people should be prevented from using their income, even if theirs is the lowest income in society, in such a way as to avoid a poll tax bill for which they will not have income from the state to pay. That is the inequity of the system. It is a disgrace for a civilised society to allow the best off massive reductions in their bills—the Prime Minister and her colleagues on the Front Bench will have massive reductions in their bills—and to allow people with nothing to be imprisoned because they cannot pay.

Mr. Wilshire: I wish to focus on three points that have been raised in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to what I regard as wild claims about the administrative burden that will be imposed, especially for collection and enforcement. Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) attempted to water down the provisions for enforcement. Thirdly, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) made outrageous points about

the Labour-backed campaign to frustrate the collection of the community charge when the Bill reaches the statute book.
It seems right that somebody should say something about the administrative side of this issue. Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 both sit within schedules 8 and 11, which deal with administration. They need to be put into context, because wild claims are made about the administrative problems of collection and enforcement. It is claimed that the cost will be vastly more than the present cost, and that to run the new system we shall need a huge army of extra council staff.
My 11 years in local government, five of which were as leader of an authority, have taught me to treat such claims with the most enormous pinch of salt. If one tries to conduct a calm study, as I have tried to do in the past, one concludes that to double the staff is likely to cost less than double the cost. Yet I have seen reports which claim to be accurate and calm which suggest that the cost will be three or four times as much, or even five or six times as much. Those are some of the crazy allegations being made about the cost of collection and enforcement.
We would do well to ask why these wild claims are being made. Clearly, some are politically inspired. If people can be frightened about the cost of a proposal, they may oppose it. Some claims have been based on wholly incorrect assumptions and have been made by people who have not taken time to study the Bill in detail or to get to know the intricacies of local government. I have seen council reports that claim for the whole future staff numbers that will probably he needed only to start the system and will certainly not be needed to keep it running.
5.15 pm
I do not see any need to apologise for the additional cost and for saying that collection and enforcement might need additional staff. There is no need to apologise for that, because fairness costs money. If Opposition Members wish to argue that only the cost of the system matters, perhaps they should advocate highway robbery to collect local government money, because that must be the cheapest way to get money from people.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not a question of reports. In my case it is a question of talking to officials in Lothian and central region. They are staid, serious assessors, who are faced with the job. Scotland is a year ahead in this respect and that is the problem that we face. I assure the House that the assessors and others who must deal with this matter will not employ people needlessly.

Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not had the good fortune to study those figures in detail, but I have looked at many others and will be delighted to look at those figures to see whether any of my points about incorrect assumptions and people building empires are valid. I shall happily look at the figures if the hon. Gentleman supplies them, but I cannot comment on them if I have not seen them.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr spoke about enforcement. There is no need to be coy about the provisions in the amendments on this score. I have not heard Opposition Members mention any need for us to ensure that those who keep the law and pay, often with difficulty, are protected by Parliament. Those who do not keep the law should not be allowed to get away with it and to undermine the principles that drive most British people,


so there must be proper enforcement and adequate penalties. The means of extracting money from such people is not enough when they seek to defy the law of the land.

Mrs. Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what has been happening in Strathclyde region in the past few weeks? The poll tax registrar has been acting against the clear instructions of the law, in that he has sent poll tax forms to householders with an accompanying postcard which says that they have three days in which to return the form instead of, as the law clearly states, 21 days. There will also be 21 days in the English and Welsh legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman not be worried if that occurred in England and Wales, and would he not advocate steps to prevent that throughout Britain?

Mr. Wilshire: That matter can be dealt with adequately by the registrar's employers.

Mrs. Fyfe: This point was raised on an interim interdict with the sheriff in Strathclyde region, and her judgment was that the matter was between the registrar and the Government, because for these purposes the Government, not Strathclyde regional council, are the employer. That is why I am addressing the question to the hon. Gentleman. Otherwise, I would address it to Strathclyde regional council.

Mr. Wilshire: It is fascinating getting lost in the details of the Scottish system, but I was trying to address myself to the Bill and not to what is or is not happening in Strathclyde.
It is proper that a range of sanctions should be available in trying to enforce collection of the community charge. Non-payers are not represented by one particular group of people who can all be dealt with in the same way. There seem to be two groups among those who do not pay. There are the "can't" payers and the "won't" payers. Yesterday, I and others were discussing rebates and exemptions as they apply to the first group and we do not want to return to that, but it is important to understand that the "can't" payers of this country, who have genuine problems with their ability to pay, need help. I am sure that the Government will address themselves to that issue, so that such people can be eliminated from the system by being helped through income support and other measures.
The people to whom we must address ourselves are the "won't" payers. They must not be allowed to sponge off others. As I said earlier, when it comes to wilful refusal, it is more than a matter of finding a means of extracting the money that is owed. There needs to be some mechanism for enforcing a penalty against those who try to take a free ride on the back of society.
The third point made by the hon. Member for Broadgreen was about campaigning to defy the law. I suspect that the pressures to water down the enforcement mechanism are a means of trying to help that campaign. If there are no real penalties for defying the law, there is very little risk in withholding the money that is owed, other than that of having it taken away at some stage in the future.
If the campaign to defy the law is successful, two very nasty things will happen. First, local government itself will be harmed. If an unknown number of people do not pay,

how will any council be able to organise its finances, make plans, or produce budgets? As a result, services will suffer. It is as well to understand that those who advocate a campaign of defiance are arguing that services should be reduced in their communities.
Complaints were made earlier that powers would be taken away from local authorities if they did not observe the law. The Opposition Front Bench complained that treasurers had powers which councillors cannot exercise. I was invited to rise to my feet and say that it would serve councils right if that happened to them. I am now happy to say that for the record. If councils defy the law, they must not be surprised if Parliament takes steps to ensure that services improve and that proper care is taken of the local population. That is the second thing that will happen.
If the campaign to undermine the rule of law is pursued, all of us will suffer. The Opposition Front Bench tried to wriggle out of saying whether the voice of Labour Back Benchers was that of the Labour party. I believe that earlier this afternoon we heard the authentic voice of the militant Left. We heard what really is going on. There is a cancer that is gnawing at our way of life. It is not just the Mace that those people wish to smash; they wish to smash also our way of life.

Mr. Boateng: Absolute rubbish!

Mr. Wilshire: If it is absolute rubbish, I look forward to hearing the Labour party disowning what was said earlier this afternoon.
In debating these amendments, it is high time that we exposed the exaggerations of those who claim that administration of the system will get out of hand. It is high time that we made clear the fact that there will be a complete range of sanctions against those who wilfully do not pay. Above all, now is the time to shine the spotlight on the Left, which is determined to defy the law and destroy our way of life.

Mr. John Fraser: At the end of the Spartacus revolt in Rome, the poor and depressed who took part were crucified in their thousands along the roads leading to the capital.

Mr. Leigh: They broke the law.

Mr. Fraser: They broke the law in wanting their own freedom. I rather agree with that breach of the law, but if the hon. Gentleman believes in oppression, then he must follow his own conscience.
In a token way, the Government are out to crucify the poor and the oppressed, certainly of the borough that I represent. There are about 90,000 ratepayers in Lambeth. When the poll tax is introduced, about 190,000 people will be liable to pay it. The number of people now receiving income support—or social security, as it was last week—represents about 25 per cent. of the population of my borough, or about one person in four. So just under 50,000 people liable to poll tax in Lambeth will be receiving income support. They will be entirely reliant on the state for their income. They are the people who, until 1 April this year, when they were liable for rates, paid no rates at all. About 50,000 people will now have to pay the poll tax.
Secondly, the average burden that people will bear in my borough will be twice the present level. The projected poll tax of £547 per person per year is almost exactly double the average burden of rates, although for the


poorer members of the community the burden of poll tax will be, not untypically, 400 per cent. greater than the burden they now bear.
I turn next to the 50,000 people who will be paying one fifth of their poll tax in cash from income support. The nature of the crucifixion will be that those people will suffer much more agony than they do at present in managing their personal affairs. They will feel more wretched and stressed because the poll tax will be greater than the compensation they now receive under social security arrangements; they will be more impoverished than they are at present. To do that to 50,000 people is a kind of financial crucifixion, of which the Government will be guilty.
The Minister told the House this afternoon—although this provision has been slipped into the new schedule—that it is possible that not all such people will go to prison, but they may find that their income support is attached. When housing benefit was introduced, for sensible reasons and in the order to ensure that vast arrears of rent did not accrue, as happened among many poorer boroughs, the arrangements operated in such a way that the whole of the housing benefit payable to the recipient went in settlement of his rent and rates. As a result, at least there is not the level of rent and rates arrears that there was with the previous system, under which supplementary benefit was paid to the recipient, who in turn was meant to pay his rates of council rent direct.
We are now returning to a system where recipients will be paid some compensation for the payment of poll tax. However, the 50,000 impoverished members of my borough will find that if they do not pay, they will be taken to the magistrates court. The costs of that action will inevitably be added to the amount owing. If they still cannot pay and are found guilty of wilful refusal, their income support will be attached. We shall return to the same point as before, where people will be more wretched, more agonised and more impoverished than when the system started.
I represent a borough and a constituency where the level of crime is far too high. It is often exaggerated, but even so it is very significant and substantial. Since my election, I have tried to work with Governments—whether my party has been in government or in opposition—and with my local police force and the community to reduce the level of crime, because I consider crime to be an invasion of people's civil rights. It has not always been an easy ride for me, particularly representing an area such as Brixton.
5.30 pm
It is almost a cliché that, to ensure that we operate against crime to achieve a more stable and tranquil community, we must try to get the community working with the so-called forces of law and order—the local police force, the local authority and so on. We must work cohesively to battle against crime, and in other respects to have that more stable and tranquil community. Graffiti and anti-social behaviour, for instance, lower the quality of people's lives in an area that is already very much impoverished.
What will the poll tax do? It will mean that those 50,000 people are much more likely to find themselves sent to prison for non-payment than under the present system. I say that for two reasons. First, those who may now be candidates for prison at least have a number of hurdles to

cross before they get there. There must be wilful refusal to pay; and, if they are very poor, until now they will have been receiving certificated housing benefit, in which case the problem will not have arisen in the first place.
Secondly, if those people are not receiving certificated housing benefit, it is likely that they will own personal property of some kind, or they may have bank accounts or earnings that can be attached. Many of my constituents are both in receipt of housing benefit and owners of property. Of course, they will not be receiving benefit for much longer, because of the £6,000 rule. But we are now introducing a new class of people. I am talking about the people—nearly 50,000 of them—who will not have certificated benefit or personal property, many of whom will be paying the tax for the first time. Those 50,000 are much more likely to be adjudged by the courts as wilfully refusing to pay their poll tax.
If Conservative Members think that magistrates take a benign view of refusal to pay, they are mistaken. A good many people are sent to prison for that reason. Although some of them at present have the money, or can find it somehow, the new group of 50,000 candidates for prison do not fall into that category.
Who will have to chase those people around the estates and the streets? The very people with whom the community has been trying to work for the last decade to increase co-operation between the police and the community, and thus to combat one cause of the lower quality of our lives.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I think that it would be unfair to accept interruptions. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
We already live in a society that contains refuseniks. Very poor people do no always pay their television licences, or car tax, and often they do not even pay the fines imposed on them when they are unlucky enough to find themselves in the magistrates courts. Not a few people, but a great cohort in an inner city London borough, will be pushed up against the police, who will have to act in a civil role to enforce a law that is being introduced by the Government in a most oppressive way.
The last poll tax, in 1381, prompted a civil revolt. I do not wish to encourage or prophesy civil trouble on the streets. I have experienced quite enough of that already in my constituency, but if there is one thing that could fracture the co-operation with my police force and others working for a stable and tranquil community—one course that is likely to undermine that co-operation, and put thousands of people at risk of imprisonment, financial penalties, degradation and ultimately criminalization—it is the legislation, and the amendments to it, that we are discussing. If the Government want a society in upheaval, they are certainly going the right way about it.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the lack of logic in the Government's proposals to reintroduce the ability to send people to prison for non-payment of rates, he could have extended his argument to the lack of consistency in the approach to sentencing between the Department of the Environment and the Home Secretary.
When the Bill was going through its Committee stage, the Criminal Justice Bill was also in Committee. On that Bill, we discussed report after report and survey after


survey that clearly demonstrated that we were sending far too many people to prison. We were discussing the principles and criteria on which we decide which offenders merit imprisonment. The time to review whether rate defaulters should be sent to prison is now, in our current debate. If we are to avoid more and more people being sent to prison, that inevitably means that we must look at the offences for which the courts can sentence them. I remind the House that in 1987 the average prison population in England and Wales was 49,000, and the prison capacity was 42,000. Prisons in England and Wales are now overcrowded to the extent of 7,000 prisoners. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made a clear and valid point about that.
The Government give the impression that they seek value for money in these matters, yet they seem to have conveniently forgotten that it costs £250 a week to keep a person in prison, whereas, for example, it costs £14 a week to impose a community service order. Would it not be better for the Government, rather than thinking of sending people to prison for rate default, to consider ways in which those people can benefit the community, at much less cost? The Government should certainly accept an argument that offers them cost benefits.
I was much taken with the hypothetical discussion cited by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Home Secretary. I can imagine the Home Secretary, discussing the matter with his colleague—perhaps on the way from a Cabinet meeting—saying, "Be careful about this proposal, because you may well be reminded of the speech that I made to magistrates in London at the beginning of the year."
As the discussion is hypothetical, I may as well remind the House of what the Home Secretary told the south-east London branch of the Magistrates Association on 15 January this year. He said:
The Court of Appeal has long made it clear that courts should not sentence on a purely punitive or deterrent basis without regard to the costs or the individual characteristics of the offender. We must try to ensure that custody is used only when the offence is so serious that a sentence outside prison would bring the system into disrepute".
It seems to me that in the Bill the Government are giving the courts powers to do the opposite.
Apart from considerations of prison overcrowding and the undesirability of increasing the prison population, we should also consider the principle behind the Government's proposal. The Government have disregarded the consensus view within the legal profession, and, increasingly, among judges, that we should not send people to prison for this sort of thing. Sending people to prison should be retained for the serious offences that we all abhor. All the organisations concerned with offenders and people who continually offend believe we should not send people to prison for minor technical offences. We are discussing a civil not a criminal matter, yet we are going in the opposite direction.
The Government's approach could lead to absurdities; there are already some. Take, for example, a man who is ordered to pay maintenance to his wife but refuses to do so. A court may send him to prison for that. Year after year he may go to prison for non-payment of maintenance, but his wife will not get the maintenance—it is wiped off

the slate. That is absurd and helps no one—neither the wife nor society. Like all other countries in western Europe, we must move away from the idea that we must send people to prison for non-payment in these matters.
The Government did not intend to include this provision originally. Had they intended to do so, it would have been in the Bill. The provision has been included because of what Conservative Members have said about rebellions that might take place in parts of England. That does not help the millions of people who will pay the poll tax and may fall into difficulties in certain circumstances. Everyone will be caught in the net and tarred with the same brush.
I sincerely urge the Government, on the basis of consistency and logic and because we are moving away from the sort of arguments the Government are using, to consider accepting amendment (a) to amendment No. 73.

Mr. Butterfill: Many of the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition have exaggerated the problem. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—I know his constituency well—suggested that there would be a large extension of the intrusion of the police into the affairs of certain members of the community in his constituency. To a degree, that may be so, but there is the problem that a minority in certain sections of society consider themselves above the law and somehow outside the general principles that govern society. They think that they do not need to comply with the law.
That is where we come to the principle of wilful refusal. Anyone who has had any experience of trying to collect debts from those who are determined not to have them collected from them, even though they possess the resources, will know of the difficulties that face officers of local authorities who are charged with such responsibilities. I shall give an illustration of that from my personal experience.
When I was driving home from the House late one night a couple of years ago, a gentleman drove a car out from a side road into the side of my car. He said, "Oh unhappy day," and proceeded to be helpful. He gave me his name and address and the details of his insurance company and admitted that the accident was entirely his fault. I assumed that a claim on his insurance company would mean I would be able to recover my loss, but I am afraid that I was mistaken. I discovered that my insurance company was not going to try to recover from the man because it was a waste of time. The company said it would delete my no-claims bonus. I said that that was ridiculous; the man was insured and I knew his insurance company. My insurance company said that, although he had cover, he had not claimed against his insurance company, and unless he made a claim against it, it would not meet the liability. My only recourse was to take action against him personally. My company said that if I could recover the money from him, it would reinstate my no-claims bonus. I proceeded to try to do just that. I went to the local court in Battersea which gave me judgment against the chap, and then the problem of trying to recover the money started.
Time after time I used all sorts of devices to recover the money, but all in vain. I sent bailiffs to his home. He kept moving and when they eventually found him they discovered that nothing in his home belonged to him—it all belonged to relatives or others, so there was nothing for them to take. They said that this was a common problem


that happened all the time. The police agreed that the man's lifestyle showed that he had plenty of money, but said that I was wasting my time trying to get it from him.
5.45 pm
In the end I abandoned the attempt. That is the sort of person whose actions constitute wilful refusal, and the provision in the Bill is intended to deal with such behaviour. It relates to the right of a public authority to recover money that is due to it.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he did not like the extension of culpable neglect. When I pressed him on that and asked how one would deal with someone who repeatedly received money from social services and had money with which to discharge his debt, yet used it on beer and betting shops, the hon. Gentleman castigated me and said that lots of rich people spend their money on beer and betting shops. He asked me why, if that was good for them, it was not good for such people. My response, from a sedentary position, was that the rich people were spending their own money, not public money.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted such people to be dealt with. Will he tell the House how he proposed to have them dealt with? Does my hon. Friend recall the hon. Gentleman's words?

Mr. Butterfill: If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey cares to intervene, I shall be glad to give way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Enforcement of attachment of earnings and distraint of goods are ways of dealing with these sorts of people, and imprisonment, if it is available at all, should be available for those who wilfully refuse to pay. If someone wilfully refuses to pay, when he could do so—the category of person to which the hon. Gentleman has referred—that is a different issue from that which the Government have addressed.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. Attachment of earnings for people who are not earning and distraint, which I found impossible to enforce despite the support of the courts and the bailiffs, are not adequate remedies in every case. From the discussions that I have had with bailiffs, I fear that this is a frequent problem.
I suggest that there are people who may not be wilfully refusing but who so manage their affairs as repeatedly to fail to use money being given to them by the state and the taxpayer to discharge their debts for that purpose—they waste it on other things. There will come a point when some sanction must be brought to bear on them to convince them that they need to comply with the ordinary standards of our society.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important point. There can come a time—it can be prescribed in regulations—when certain activities, such as failure to answer requests for information or to fill in forms, will be deemed wilful refusal.

Mr. Butterfill: At least we are getting somewhere with the hon. Gentleman. Of itself, wilful refusal is inadequate. Culpable neglect will be used sparingly. The court will not use it other than in extremis, when it believes that somebody is behaving quite unreasonably. At the end of

the day, there must be a sanction that persuades people that they must behave in the way in which 99 per cent. of civilised society behaves.

Ms. Mowlam: Many Opposition Members wish to speak in the debate, so my remarks will be brief.
One difficulty that we have in speaking to the amendments is that which we faced in Committee—the lack of information and factual detail from the Government. It is like pulling teeth. For every bit of information that we want, we must pull all the time so that we may have a sensible, open, honest, rational debate. The charitable interpretation of the difficulty is that, as the Minister said when opening the debate, the answer is not yet available and that it is truly legislation on the hoof. As we have heard, the maximum amount that will be attached to benefits to get money back has not been decided.
The uncharitable interpretation is that the Government have made a specific, concrete decision to make it difficult for people in the House and outside to know exactly what has happened. To support that argument, one has only to refer to the document that was leaked from the Prime Minister's Office. It said about the poll tax:
Careful thought would need to be given to the timing of any announcement of a change to the proposed community charge rebate. It would be desirable to avoid giving precise details until after the debate on April 18th.
That is the uncharitable explanation, but, in view of what has been leaked from the Prime Minister's Office, perhaps it matches the reality of what we are dealing with. The Minister for Local Government said that we could discuss the principle—the principle is there—but we do not need the specifics. I have never heard a more ludicrous, crass statement in the 140-odd hours in which I have listened to the Minister during debates on this subject. It is like saying that we can discuss the Alton Bill without talking about the number of weeks. It is like saying that we can discuss the Licensing Bill without knowing when public houses are to open and close. We have been subjected to this kind of illogicality time and again when debating the Bill in the House and in Committee.
It would be useful to hear the answer to the question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I do not know whether it is charitable or uncharitable. My hon. Friend said that as the regulations seep out, poll tax will be deducted from people's benefits at source. That is what Opposition Members fear. It would be useful if the Minister, who is undecided about the question, could let us have an answer—yes or no, undecided, do not know—so that people who are surviving on family credit and income support may have some idea of what the future holds.
Amendment No. 137 refers to the attachment of benefits for the non-payment of poll tax. When he moved the amendment, the Minister for Local Government said that he supported equality of treatment. We all support equality of treatment. We would support equality of treatment so that all school children may have decent, hot meals. We want everybody to have decent housing and decent holidays, although the Minister for Health obviously does not believe that people on benefit should have holidays. How can the Minister talk of equality of treatment in relation to the poll tax when people on income support who do not have the financial wherewithal to pay the 20 per cent. will still be required to do so?
The Minister cannot ignore the other factors that affect payment of the 20 per cent. At present, somebody on


income support faces a cut in benefit. If we are honest with each other, we will agree that, back in October 1977, benefit was actually cut. We are faced with single payments being abolished. Out of the £203 million that replaces single payments, only £60 million is in the form of grants, and the rest is in the form of loans. Already, someone on income support who has specific needs will have to pay back what he or she borrows. Water rates are included, without any clear element of income support to pay them. Electricity prices and television licence fees are going up. Many pensioners will face an increase in television licence fees.
Many people on benefit face such outgoings, and we are told that under the rebate system it will be possible for them to pay. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) cannot ignore the fact that 20 per cent. is the national average. It is no good ignoring Opposition Members who say that people will be faced with more than the national average. Even by the Government's own standards, they will have less money to pay back.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady accept that the remedy is in people's own hands? If they were to elect a sensible council, such as mine in Bournemouth, the national average would more than cover the 20 per cent. If they choose to elect high-spending authorities, it will not. The remedy is in their hands.

Ms. Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring two points. First, there are differences in needs. Many Labour local authorities face variations in needs, which is why the figure will be above the national average. Secondly, one lives in the real political world and knows that 25 per cent. of a local authority's budget will come from the business rate, 50 per cent. will be what the Government decide is needed, and the remainder will come from the poll tax. This means that there will be direct Government interference in the running of local authorities. This is not the democracy or the accountability about which we have heard in the arguments about the poll tax. Exactly the opposite will be at work. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point does not match reality. It is not local accountability; it is central Government control. That is the bottom line of what the poll tax is about.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does the hon. Lady agree that, in the context of her point and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), the proof of the pudding will come next week, when the Conservative party takes control of Langbaurgh council? Thereafter, there will he a direct comparison to enable all the people in that constituency to decide which way to vote in the future.

Ms. Mowlam: I do not know why I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on such a facile point. I hope that he will live in political reality and not in the political fantasy in which he seems to operate today. Langbaurgh council is a good example of a council in an area with a high level of needs, where the poll tax will not serve the needs of the people.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that we must remember that fairness costs money. Many people will agree with that clear statement, and it must be remembered when debating the amendments. Opposition Members, along with some Conservative Members, have

pushed hard for the rebate system and the amendments because it costs money to be fair. The prime aspect of the poll tax is that it is unfair and unequal.

Mr. Cormack: It is not good to send people to gaol for debt. The stories about debtors' prisons in the 19th century are hardly the most inspiring in our history. However, one must accept that there must be an ultimate sanction for those—that small group—who wilfully refuse to pay. I hope that there will be most strenuous efforts to ensure that nobody who cannot afford to pay finds himself or herself going to gaol. That would be quite unacceptable to people throughout the country.
Opposition Members know that their dislike of the measure cannot exceed mine. I have made that point plain on many occasions, both by what I have said and by my votes. At the same time, members of the Labour party who succour, support, encourage and incite those who are inclined to break the law do a grave disservice to parliamentary democracy and to their own position.
I know that there are strong feelings about this measure in Scotland and, no doubt, there will be in England and Wales. The way in which those strong feelings should be channelled and directed is the parliamentary, democratic way. Parliament is where the law is made and where it must be changed. If this measure is not amended significantly in future years, a Government will be elected, of whatever political complexion, who will change it. There will need to be much alteration and careful monitoring. I am unhappy that as yet no significant amendments have been made, but I hope that they will be made in the House of Lords. If they are, I hope that they will not be overturned here.
The law is the law. No legislator should ever encourage people to break the law that has been democratically passed by Parliament. Opposition Members share my dislike of the Bill and I hope that they will share that view. I hope that in a calmer atmosphere, in Scotland, England and Wales, there will be consistent democratic opposition while the measure is going through Parliament. By all means, let there be pledges to change, alter or repeal the Bill, but not incitement to break the law, because there lie anarchy and the destruction of the system that we are here to uphold.

6 pm

Mr. Barnes: I had hoped that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) would be present when I made my speech because we had a dispute earlier about whether his role in these amendments and the provision for imprisonment had been that of a midwife. I refer hon. Members to the Standing Committee Hansard of 18 February 1988, columns 819–36, to check the role that he played. Had he been present, I would have gone into greater detail and he could have responded to my interpretation of what he said.
Just as many people have been unable to adjust to the cuts in social security and housing benefit—they are trying desperately to survive and are panicking about how they will manage—so masses of people will be unable to adjust to the imposition of the poll tax. Despite all that has been said about exemptions and rebates, that problem will become apparent, and it should be considered in the context of the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
If this measure is passed by Parliament, it will ride on people very strongly indeed. Parliament should give thought to what it is doing and should not impose on people burdens which lead to responses that cut over the division between law and order and potential lawlessness. There are bureaucratic pressures in this system and it makes attacks on privacy. There will be penalties for non-registration, and the penalties for non-payment will include the attachment of earnings, the sending in of bailiffs and distraint of goods and imprisonment.
With regard to poor people, the Minister says, strangely, that the ability to pay will be taken into account by the courts. If that is so, why cannot it be taken into account in the legislation? It is for us to introduce that principle into the measure.
The bureaucratic arrangements, invasions of privacy, penalties and, above all, the unjust payments that people will have to make will lead to many people disappearing from the poll tax register and the electoral roll. Many young, mobile people, and those who are encouraged by the Government to get on their bikes to look for work, will begin to disappear from the register. That is already happening in Scotland, and the surveys that have been carried out in this country show that that problem will extend here. At the election in June 1987, excluding Northern Ireland as this measure will not apply there, there was a 75 per cent. turnout. There were 42 million people on the electoral roll and just under 32 million people voted. If 10 per cent. of those people disappear from the electoral roll, 3·5 million people will lose their voting rights. That is a very serious problem.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barnes: I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman has not been present during the debate.
Young people and the lower socio-economic groups would be much more likely to vote for the Labour party, given the pressures that will be created by the poll tax, were it not for the fact that disproportionately large numbers of them will begin to disappear from the electoral roll. Conservative voters will certainly not be in that position. At the last general election, the Conservative party polled 13·7 million votes, the Labour party 10·1 million votes and there were 7·3 million votes for the then alliance party. The disappearance of 3·5 million people from those socio-economic groups is a very disturbing matter.
There have been many historic battles in the House about the extension of the franchise, and its development. We now have a universal franchise, but it is under attack. The poll tax seeks to perpetuate the Government's rule. It is not an open measure; it is not like the Parliament Act 1911 being used to extend Parliament because it is claimed that there is an emergency, such as during war time, nor is it a crude and hideous device such as that used in Nazi Germany when Hitler managed to pass an enabling Act to impose his diktat on society. Nevertheless, it is a fix, and we should be concerned about that. Parliament should be bothered about the manipulation that is taking place in this legislation.
Every hon. Member is a beneficiary of the extension of the franchise and should act to protect the franchise and ensure that a measure such as this is not passed.
The fate of those on the electoral roll who cannot pay or who feel justified in refusing to do so because of the

injustice of this measure needs to be considered. Attachment of earnings will be used against them. It is a highly problematic measure, but when difficulties arise and when information is available to employers, will it finish up with the Economic League and will people end up on black lists and be unable to find employment? Will it be used politically against them?
Bailiffs present serious problems. Bailiffs may be directed against self-employed people and against many unemployed and partly employed people to get payments. I do not know whether many hon. Members have had a visit from the bailiffs, but I have been visited by the bailiffs because I objected to the operation of the Housing Finance Act 1972, not in any great illegal sense, but merely in a Gandhian sense of civil disobedience. I was willing to go before the court and face its decision and use that as pressure against that measure.
I was chairman of a ratepayers and rent payers association in the Dronfield area. For a fortnight we ran a rent and rates strike. I did not pay rent, only rates, and I withdrew the payment of the princely sum of £2·79. The bailiffs were sent in under the General Rate Act 1967. They took new furniture—a table, four chairs and a coffee table—and six LP records. If that system operates for many ordinary people for sums much greater than £2·79, it will be damaging. A table, four chairs and a coffee table might not matter much to some people, but at that time my home seemed to be denuded by the absence of those pieces of furniture. They were taken away because more money was needed than £2·79. Money was needed to cover the visit by the bailiffs and the retention and sale of the goods. I am not saying that four times as much money than is owed will have to be collected in regard to much larger sums owed for poll tax, but the secondhand value that could be obtained from the contents of many people's home will mean that their homes will be almost denuded.
That will not be the case when people have taken action to ensure that bailiffs cannot get hold of them, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Ordinary, decent people who do not have the ability to pay will be visited by the bailiffs. The bailiffs' first visit will be to put the frighteners on people. They will put a marker on the furniture to be taken and give the people a time to pay. Later, they will come back and take away the furniture.
The final measure involves imprisonment. It is not unreasonable in certain contexts, but in the context of the poll tax it is an entirely unacceptable measure which exacerbates the evil of the Bill. We should be extremely careful about treating a whole section of society as criminals, as it is more likely that they will then start to behave in that way. Parliament will be responsible for creating such circumstances if we do not resist the poll tax legislation.
I am greatly concerned with the aspect of the measure involving democracy and civil liberties and rights. I mentioned it in the House when I pointed out that the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that in Scotland petitions would be a legitimate means of finding out the names of people who should be on the poll tax register.
6.15 pm
Petitioning is an ancient right that goes back to Anglo Saxon times when people could petition the monarch.
Later they could petition Parliament. In that regard, I wish to quote briefly from "Erskine May." On page 858 it, states:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times, and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.
On page 147, it states:
Any abuse of the right of petition will he treated by either House as a breach of privilege.
On page 869, it states that petitions themselves may be forwarded to Ministers—it does not say anything about the names—so that they can make use of and respond to them.
It is quite clear that public petitions—we are discussing public petitions in this case—are the property of the House and that people have a right to petition Parliament and to press their views without fearing that the information will be used against them, even at a future time when an illegal situation might then exist.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity that he did not take on Monday to disown that provision. If he does not, it may have to be raised as a matter of parliamentary privilege of interference with rights.
The House has to face a most serious situation concerning the defence of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is under attack in this measure, which hits at civil liberties, petitioning rights and rights of franchise. Everything must be done to stop the measure being introduced, otherwise there will be problems about responding to the injustices that will occur.
Even the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who believed in sovereignty and in the right of the sovereign body to determine matters and considered that nobody should have the right to challenge it, asked that the sovereign authority should act in a wise fashion and not rile people or exploit them too strongly, because, whatever the circumstances, people could rebel. It is up to hon. Members not to pass legislation that puts people into a situation whereby the only way that they can justifiably defend their interests is to rebel against the provisions.

Mr. Boateng: There is something peculiarly unpleasant about the sight of Conservative Members in hot pursuit of those whom they would classify as the undeserving and intransigent poor. That is what the penal provisions of the Bill do. They establish as part of the monstrous machinery of enforcement envisaged in the Bill a means by which the poor will be persecuted, because under this Government, in particular, the rich get the pleasure and the poor get the pain. The Government's proposals are fundamentally unfair.
The Bill is monstrously divisive between north and south, between inner London and outer London, between London and the rest of the south-east and even between black people and white people because 67 per cent. of the black community in London will be net losers after the introduction of the tax compared with a far smaller proportion of the rest of society.
Still more, the Bill is divisive between those families who care for those who are least fortunate among them—an unemployed son or daughter or a distressed or disabled grandparent—and those who do not. It will be divisive among families and a threat to the cohesiveness of

our community. Nowhere is that threat greater than in the monstrous administrative and enforcement machinery that the schedule envisages.

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman suggests that those who care for elderly relatives will be disadvantaged by the Bill. That suggestion was made yesterday by a number of hon. Members, and I tried to intervene but was unable to do so. That is just not the case. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that whether an elderly dependent relative living in a home is liable for the community charge will depend entirely on that person's income. If he or she is on a low income, or has no income, there will be an 80 per cent. rebate and they may also qualify for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying from the amendment. We must return to the question of administration, enforcement and collection.

Mr. Boateng: We have drifted away from it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have no intention of running away from it. If a family chooses to have the grandmother or the grandfather to live with them as opposed to putting that person in a home, as a larger family it will be penalised for making that choice. All the statistics bear that out. If the family income is limited, the position is even worse.
The provision is divisive both between groups of people and within the community. That division is made still worse by the provisions in the schedule that relate to administration and enforcement. A burden will be placed on councils. They will have to administer the community charge at great cost. It has been suggested in this debate that the cost will not be so great as we have suggested and that for political motives we have deliberately inflated the sums involved. Conservative Members would do well to consider the advice that this Government have received on that point.
One would hardly describe the Rating and Valuation Association as a politically motivated body, dominated by the extremists of the Left, whom Conservative Members have asked us to disavow. It is a responsible body that will be directly and professionally concerned with the procedure for the administration and enforcement of these provisions. The Rating and Valuation Association says that it is concerned because it believes that millions—that is the association's word—of people will attempt to evade the impact of this legislation. It says that an "expensive and intrusive inspectorate" will be needed to track down those whom it describes—they are the association's words, not mine—as the "missing millions."
We need to look at the impact of that expensive and intrusive inspectorate on civil liberties and on local authority and Exchequer expenditure. How will that inspectorate be received in the communities that it will be required to police? I mean quite literally police, because the idea that that inspectorate will be able to avoid a policing role and that it will not be required to poke and pry into people's lives is absolute nonsense. It will be responsible for compiling the register. Ordinary members of the public may have access to the register under the Data Protection Act 1984, but they will not have access to the minutiae, to the trivia, to the tittle-tattle, to the pieces of information to be found here, there and everywhere that the inspectorate will have to collect in order to compile the register. We have heard not a word from Conservative


Members about the access of the general public to that hidden register. We want to hear from them exactly how the privacy of the individual will be protected.
It goes even further than that. Local authorities will be required—they will have no choice in the matter—to act as the Government's snoops and agents. A fiscal gestapo will he established by the diktat of this Administration. It will be the job of men and women to gather information about who is or who is not trying to evade the impact of the tax. Conservative Members smile, some of them are indignant, but this intrusive inspectorate will be operating in their communities. They, too, will have to face that reality, just as ratepayers will have to face the reality of paying for it. Because of its impact on the ordinary people, that is entirely wrong and entirely unjustifiable.
In constituencies such as mine we are trying to create cohesive communities that stick together and can sustain growth and enterprise. How is the impact of such an inspectorate on those communities to be judged and evaluated? What will be the impact of the policing and the exercise of the bailiff's functions that will inevitably follow from these provisions? It will split those communities. It will set neighbour against neighbour. It will provide a fertile avenue for individuals to denounce people because they have a grievance against them.
We are told that the Government have received advice, not from a politically opinionated or motivated body but from a body that during the passage of previous legislation the Scottish Office felt it necessary to approach for advice, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It appears that CIPFA has given advice to the Government on this issue and that local authorities have been told that it is important that they should be inventive in their approach to this task. Is it to be suggested that local authorities should set up sneak boxes, as was done during the French revolution, to get people to say whether a new person has moved into the neighbourhood or block, whether Mrs. X or Mr. Y has a new member of the household? Whether X is registered or not may determine whether X should be allowed to use certain civic amentities. Will local authorities be encouraged to produce a card to this end? It will be up to the local authorities; there is nothing in the legislation to preclude it.
Imagine in such places as the city of Westminster or the London borough of Wandsworth, where the writ of the Conservative party holds sway, people having to carry a card to show that they have paid their community charge before they are allowed to use the public swimming baths. Is that to be the nature of the enforcement procedure that Conservative Members propose? If it is, there is every reason to believe that we shall, indeed, have to put up with an expensive and intrusive inspectorate. If it is, this tax will be an incubus on the backs of our communities. It will sap and drain the civil liberties of individuals throughout the country.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have made great play of civil liberties. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is a proper description of civil liberties to say that large numbers of people can seek to disappear—to use the description of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East—and avoid making right and proper

payments to the rest of the community while at the same time wanting all the benefits of belonging to the community? Is that his view of civil liberty?

Mr. Boateng: What is inconceivable and unacceptable, when introducing an inherently unfair tax, is the creation of machinery which will be intrusive, expensive, and all embracing and which will not provide adequate protection for the liberty of the individual in terms of his or her privacy. It is because it is unacceptable that we shall seek to divide the House tonight. There will be a price to be paid for this legislation. Initially, it will be paid by the whole community, but, ultimately, it will be paid by the Conservative Members responsible for introducing it.

Mr. Frank Doran: I make two preliminary remarks before I turn to the substance of my speech. First, as a solicitor, like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I should declare an interest. I am pleased that the Government are making provision for my old age, with the amount of litigation that this legislation will create.
Secondly, I commend the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). He showed by his statement and, of course, his vote the other night, along with his colleagues, an integrity which is sadly lacking on the Government Benches.
I came to this debate hoping to hear what the Government have learnt from the Scottish experience. In Scotland, we are conscious that the poll tax was floated there a year earlier than in England, as an experiment. I am sorry to say that the Government have learnt nothing from what is going on in Scotland and from the year's experience that they have had there. I listened, for instance, to the Minister talking about the low number of people whom he would expect to suffer imprisonment for debt. The Minister should look at and listen to what is happening in Scotland.
Let us look at some of the statistics that the Government have presented. They have produced estimated figures of the poll tax for every local authority area in the country. In Scotland, we have had the opportunity to look at those very carefully. In my own area of Aberdeen, the estimate was £200 per individual. From that estimate, we could see that the Government has not, for instance, taken any account of the cost of collecting the poll tax, of the shortfall in payment, and of those people who will not register and will simply hide from the register. Whether the Government like it or not, that will happen.
The figure that we in Scotland produced for each individual was nearer £260 or £270 a year for the current year. I am gratified that the director of finance for the Grampian region, which is the rating authority for my area, agrees with that figure. He assesses the figure for poll tax in my area as £261 on this year's figures. He has had to be realistic, as have all local government officers in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Government are not being realistic. The local authorities in Scotland are taking into account, for example, the fact that they anticipate a shortfall of some 10 per cent. in registration. I raised that point with the Minister at Question Time a couple of weeks ago.
We had about 63,000 electors at the June election in Aberdeen South, but by the time the draft register came


out in December the total had reduced to 58,000. I do not pretend that the 5,000-odd voters whom we lost are all due to the poll tax, but a significant proportion of them are.
In addition, local authorities estimate that there will be about 10 per cent. of people with bad debt—people who will not or cannot pay. It is important to compare that with the present shortfall in rates payments. The Minister will be aware that the national figure is something less than 1 per cent. of arrears for bad debt on the rates. Local government officers in Scotland have to plan for about 10 per cent. of bad debt, because this tax will apply to far more people and will be far more difficult to collect.
The process of recovery which the Government have instituted in Scotland was recently analysed by a professor of Scots law at Edinburgh university, Professor Robert Black. He is one of our leading legal commentators. He commended the Government, not for the poll tax, because I think that he is an opponent of it, but for the way in which they had drafted the Scottish legislation. The professor said that it was drafted very tightly and that he had, in fact, never seen such watertight legislation. That legislation made it very difficult for people to evade their responsibility for payment of the poll tax. Those are not my thoughts, but the thoughts of Professor Black.
I compare that with what we have in England. As I understand the Minister's response to the various points that have been made by my hon. Friends, there are a number of difficulties which the Government are facing and which clearly have not been considered. I am not an expert on the English procedure. I know Scots law and, if I were to learn anything about English law, it would simply confuse me.
I read, for example, amendment No. 73 concerning the liability orders. In Scotland the procedure excludes the possibility of going to court. According to paragraph 3 of the schedule, the authority may apply to the magistrates court. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for hearings. What account has the Minister taken of the extra burden that that will place on the courts? If I am correct, and the local government officers in Scotland are correct, about the 10 per cent. bad debt, 37 million people in England and Wales may be liable to pay. That means between 3 million and 3·5 million new debtors. That is an assessment of the burden that this legislation will place on the courts, because of the fact that individuals will be entitled to defend themselves in court. What assessment has been made of the extra cost of, for example, legal aid? Have the Government done any research on that? As I say, in Scotland that opportunity is not available. I am not advocating the Scottish procedure as it is an outrage—it is almost an administrative procedure.
I wish to hear what the Government have to say about the extra costs that are involved. There are also the additional costs of imprisonment. Thankfully, in Scotland, when Parliament passed the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, it did away with the idea of imprisonment for non-payment of debt. However, we see it being introduced here in England.
The Minister played down the anticipated number of people who will be imprisoned. If that provision existed in Scotland, people would be queuing up to go to prison.

That is how strong the feeling is on the poll tax in Scotland. What consideration has been given to the burden that that will place on the prison service?
I have been travelling around London and the south-east of England, speaking to local groups about the poll tax, and I know that the feeling that we had in Scotland a year ago is here in England today, and is building up. In Scotland, there is a ferment about the poll tax. There is now as strong a feeling about this issue in England as there is in Scotland. There will be people who will take the opportunity to make a court appearance, because they will vocally refuse to pay the poll tax. What consideration has been given to such matters?
I conclude by saying that the Government have not learnt anything from the Scottish experience. That is typical of the arrogant and reckless way in which this Government carry out their business.

Mr. Pike: This afternoon we have been debating a group of amendments which address issues of considerable importance. They give us considerable fears as provided for in the Bill, and the amendments that the Government have tabled will further increase their power to enforce this legislation.
As I have cut my speech to the minimum, I shall not be able to refer to every speech that has been made in the debate. I have done so to allow as many hon. Members as possible—particularly my hon. Friends—to speak in the debate. It is significant that most of the contributions have been made by my hon. Friends. There have been few contributions from Conservative Members. That in itself shows our anxiety over these provisions in the Bill and in the Government amendments.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) did something that is typical of the Government. Repeatedly throughout the passage of this legislation, when the Government have been in difficulty defending their legislation, they have tried to divert us from what the Bill is proposing and to focus attention on unimportant issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that two categories of people would be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill—the "can't payers" and the "won't payers". It is significant that at least he accepted that there will be some people who cannot pay, because that is the issue that we have been arguing during our debates on this legislation. Because of the Bill's failure to take into account ability to pay, there will be people who cannot pay. That is the message that the hon. Gentleman should send to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his hon. and learned Friend the Minister who is to reply. The Government have not addressed themselves to the problem of dealing with those who are unable to pay.

Mr. Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: No. I shall not give way now because I intended to give way only once as time is short and I want to say something else about the hon. Gentleman before I give way. I shall save him the need to intervene on a second occasion.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the Labour party's position on the operation of the law. My hon. Friend made it clear where the Labour party stands on that issue. The Labour party is a democratic party and believes in exercising its power


through winning elections at local and national level through the ballot box. That is the way in which we believe in operating.
There is a difference between breaking the law, which we do not advocate, as we believe that laws must be made by Parliament or by local byelaws or decisions by democratically elected councils, and non-co-operation with the law. Conservative Members always seem to imply that breaking the law and non-co-operation with the law are unique to people on the Left of politics in this country. That is not true. One needs only to consider the legislation relating to comprehensive education. Many Conservative-controlled councils with responsibilities for education refused to co-operate with the legislation for many years and thereby hindered the education of our children.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Pike: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once.

Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Taking him back to my reference to "can't payers", I wish that he would remind the House that, as well as referring to such people, I explained the way in which we should handle that problem. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will conveniently have forgotten that I was explaining that the way to deal with "can't payers" was to do something about their income support.
With regard to my comments about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), we still have not had an answer—can the hon. Gentleman give the House an answer—on whether he does or does not dissociate himself and his party from the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to the effect that he was in favour, and that Liverpool seemed to be in favour, of refusing to implement the legislation? That is incitement to break the law. It is criminal activity. Is that the policy of the Labour party?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was very clear on that. In fact, I have his statement on that, but because time is short I shall not repeat it. The hon. Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members will be able to read my hon. Friend's comments in the Official Report tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman's attitude typifies the way in which the Government and the Conservative party work. They want to divert attention from the crucial issues of the legislation to issues which they feel are of more advantage to them and which, in many cases, are totally irrelevant to the real issues.

Dr. John Reid: Does my hon. Friend not find it the height of hypocrisy that Conservative Members should mouth platitudes about staying within the law when on two occasions recently Ministers have come to the House with two sets of regulations which have been found to be unlawful by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments but have insisted on railroading unlawful regulations through the House to impose the poll tax on Scotland?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Indeed, the Secretary of State who is responsible for this legislation probably has the record among Secretaries of State for breaking the law on the greatest number of occasions.
6.45 pm
I turn quickly to the amendments in the time that is now available. I must emphasise a point that has been made on several occasions this afternoon. The registration officer responsible for creating the register and for the collection of the poll tax is not responsible to the local authority, but is subject to the direction of the Government. The Bill clearly provides for that and the officers must carry out its provisions.
The Minister suggested that attachment of benefit was an issue that the Government intended to deal with by an amendment in the other place. We are rightly worried about the implications of that, because we will not he able to debate it at the length at which we would wish to do so. I hope the Minister will seek to ensure that when the Bill returns from the other place we shall have an opportunity to discuss that amendment. We in this House have the right to discuss Lords amendments, but because the Bill is guillotined here, it will be guillotined when it returns from the other House. Time may well be so tight that we shall be unable to debate these important issues at that stage. We are worried about that amendment and may well be utterly opposed to it and want to debate it at length.
Last night the Minister suggested that he would be conciliatory and that at a later stage he intended to introduce an amendment relating to prisoners on remand in custody. Having been given that undertaking, we want to see exactly what he proposes to do because we have fears about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a valid point about enforcement and the role of the police. They will encounter difficulties and conflict because of certain duties that they will be asked to perform as a result of the Bill. They will come into conflict with the very people with whom they have problems in enforcing something that should not be within their responsibilities.
Unfortunately, because of the way in which the guillotine falls, we shall have to vote against the Government's first amendment in this group, No. 43, which is not the one that we consider the most important in the group. Because of the guillotine, we are precluded from voting on amendments that are perhaps even more important. However, by voting against that Government amendment we shall be showing our feelings on the subjects that we have been debating this afternoon.
Amendent No. 137 is a Labour amendment which would prevent the attachment of income support or social security entitlements to poll tax payments. I wish to make an important point, which has been made once or twice earlier. If there is an attachment for those who are entitled to the 80 per cent. rebate—against the other 20 per cent. which will be paid for from their benefit—and if that attachment to their benefit to meet that 20 per cent. Is an authority where the poll tax is above average, what will be the position if the attachment of benefit to pay the poll tax reduces that person's level of income, through benefit or income support, below what the statute decrees that person needs for his or her requirements? We would argue that such attachments of benefit to meet the 20 per cent. payment defeat the whole object of the accountability that the Government claim for the Bill. Such situations could arise where the poll tax is more than what the Government say it will be and where it is more than the average that win be paid in benefit to cover the 20 per cent. That is an important point.
As I have said repeatedly in our debates on the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, I want us to get out of the situation where we allow the Government to get away with talking about over-spending and high-spending authorities. The Government have failed to recognise that authorities have to meet the different needs and requirements within the communities that they represent. The Government are not prepared to accept that there are different needs and requirements throughout the country.
Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56 provide for imprisonment for the non-payment of residual rates and the national non-domestic rate. The Opposition believe that it is wrong to provide the power of imprisonment in such instances. Such powers are unnecessary and draconian. By placing these powers in the Bill the Government are showing once again that they recognise that the proposed tax is unpopular and that it will be difficult to collect. They understand that if they do not provide fall-back powers they will be unable to collect the tax and it will not work. They have failed to understand that they must deal with the crucial and fundamental problem of ability to pay.

Mr. Howard: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) to the Opposition Front Bench. He and I have spent many hours discussing the community charge and many other issues in various Standing Committees. He made a substantial contribution to the deliberations that took place as we considered the Bill in Committee.
Unfortunately, in the devotion which he attributed to his party in its desire to abide by the law, the hon. Gentleman was guilty of a good deal of wishful thinking. We shall study with care the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). We shall also read and study with great care the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Field). We noted the embarrassment which was experienced by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Burnley when they listened to the incitement to law breaking from the hon. Member for Broadgreen. Their embarrassment was apparent to the entire House.
The contributions of Opposition Members have been characterised by what can be described only as hysterical hyperbole. Their technique is to describe legislation which is not yet before the House and which was not before the Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) suggested that the proposed legislation will interfere with the right to petition Parliament. It will not. He asserted that it will interfere with the public's right to vote. It will not. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that it will be divisive for families. It will not. When we bring these facts to the attention of Labour Members, they say, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said yesterday, "That is a matter of theory." We are not discussing theory. We are discussing the Bill as it stands and not as it is in the figments of the imagination of Labour Members. We are not discussing it in the form in which they would like it to be for the purpose of stirring up anxiety throughout the country. We are discussing the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: The difference between the subjective and the theoretical can be illustrated clearly by the Minister's

response to the claim that we are discussing an anti-family tax. No one is claiming that there is a provision in the Bill that declares that it is an anti-family tax. Therefore, it becomes a matter of subjective judgment when determining whether it is or is not. My hon. Friends and I prefer to accept, for example, the unanimous view of the Scottish churches that it is a profoundly anti-family tax. We prefer to accept the view of organisations such as Age Concern that it is a profoundly anti-family tax. We are permitted to apply our subjective judgments and to conclude, whatever conscience-salving fig leaves the Minister chooses to wear, that the tax is all of the things that he has denied it is. That is why it is opposed by 80 per cent. of people in Scotland and why it will come to be opposed by 80 per cent. of those in England and Wales.

Mr. Howard: It is true that there are many individuals and, sadly, many organisations that have been misled by the propaganda of the Labour party. When my ministerial colleagues and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Back Benches discuss these matters, we do not base our opinions on the opinions of others. We base our opinions on the contents of the Bill, and it is to its contents that I invite the attention of the House, not the second or third-hand opinions of others who themselves are likely to have been misled by damaging and hysterical propaganda.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's argument would be rather more credible if on one of the substantive issues in this debate—the rules for dealing with those on income support—the relevant provisions were before the House. The reality is that they are not. We have only his information that an amendment will be introduced in another place. That is probably because he dare not introduce it in this place.

Mr. Howard: As I said earlier, all the arguments that we have heard on this important matter have been based on principle. Opposition Members have not said, "We might be in favour of imprisonment, depending on the terms of the regulations. We might be in favour of adopting the methods that you, the Government, have in mind for those on income support, depending upon the details." We have heard only arguments on principle from Opposition Members, and it is possible to discuss them in principle without having before us details of the legislation that will be introduced in another place.
I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. I wish to put right some of the misleading assertions that have been made by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Perry Barr spent a great deal of his speech—it was an extraordinary passage that bordered on hysteria—talking about the extent to which those who are to be responsible for enforcing the collection of the community charge will be employees of local authorities and responsible to them. He suggested that that would not be the position. The fact is—this is an excellent example of why it is important to read the provision in the Bill—that the Bill places all the powers and duties in respect of billing, collection and recovery of the community charge on the charging authority and not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, on the treasurer. This is in contrast with the registration duties that are placed on a named officer, the community charge registration officer.


It was wrong for the hon. Gentleman to claim that the treasurer and not the charging authority will be responsible for collection and recovery.
The treasurer and his staff will carry out collection and recovery in practice but they will act under the direction of the authority. I do not know what caused the hon. Member for Perry Barr to make such an inaccurate assertion. I do not know whether he was confused by the provisions in part IX, which require each local authority to have a chief finance officer and set out the qualifications of that officer. That, of course, is an entirely different matter. Responsibility for all the duties that we have been discussing in this group of amendments will lie with the charging authority.
Nor is it the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), that it was recently decided in the courts in Scotland that the registration officer for Strathclyde was an employee of the Scottish Office. The registration officer for Strathclyde is a local authority employee. He carries out the duties that have been placed upon him in both primary and secondary legislation. The recent court case in Scotland found that he was—

Mr. Rooker: Deal with the specific questions.

Mr. Howard: I am dealing with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill. The registration officer for Strathclyde was acting entirely in accordance with the law.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr talked about reasonableness and the information—

Mr. Rooker: Deal with the specific questions.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions and I shall respond to them if he will give me the opportunity to do so.
The hon. Gentleman raised a question about reasonableness and whether registration officers should be confined to requesting information they reasonably require. That too was a matter that I dealt with yesterday in the course of the debate. I also said yesterday that there was nothing between us on that matter and I said I would see whether there was anything between the hon. Gentleman and the Government

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Howard: The only tactic that the Opposition can adopt in relation to these provisions in the Bill is—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution of 18 April, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Bermingham: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order relate to the conduct of the Division? If so, I shall take it now. If not, I shall take it afterwards.

Mr. Bermingham: Indeed it does. Is it not a fact that, when a point of order is raised before a Division is called, that point of order ought to be taken at that stage because it may materially affect the calling of the Division? My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
Wilson) attempted to raise a point of order a few moments ago and, although the point of order had been acknowledged by your good self, the Division continued to be called. Therefore, whatever point my hon. Friend wished to raise, which may have been germane to the legality or otherwise of the Division, was denied by the fact that the Division proceeded. Is it not stated in "Erskine May" that, once a point of order has been called, time and the House stand still until the point is cleared?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The short answer is that I am hound by the timetable motion to put the Question at 7 o'clock. That is what I did.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but merely seeking guidance. Is it the case, therefore, that once a timetable motion comes into existence, the rights of hon. Members to question the procedures of the House are put into abeyance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that he must not drag me into arguments of that sort. I am bound by the timetable motions that are passed by the House.

The House having divided: Ayes 333, Noes 222.

Division No. 267]
[7 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Allason, Rupert
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dicks, Terry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Eggar, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Evennett, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Fallon, Michael






Farr, Sir John
Knowles, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lightbown, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lilley, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gardiner, George
McCrindle, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gorst, John
Maclean, David


Gow, Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Major, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mans, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Maples, John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marlow, Tony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Hal


Harris, David
Mills, Iain


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moate, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Heddle, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hill, James
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moss, Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Holt, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Paice, James


Irving, Charles
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Janman, Tim
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Powell, William (Corby)


Key, Robert
Price, Sir David


Kilfedder, James
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Redwood, John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Riddick, Graham





Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thorne, Neil


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ryder, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tredinnick, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trotter, Neville


Scott, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Anderson, Donald
Cartwright, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashdown, Paddy
Clay, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Coleman, Donald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dewar, Donald


Buchan, Norman
Dixon, Don


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Douglas, Dick


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Duffy, A. E. P.






Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliott


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Reid, Dr John


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Henderson, Doug
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Holland, Stuart
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, Jeff


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M¯n)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Kennedy, Charles
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Stott, Roger


Lambie, David
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lewis, Terry
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Vaz, Keith


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


Loyden, Eddie
Wallace, James


McAllion, John
Walley, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


Macdonald, Calum A.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McFall, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wigley, Dafydd


McKelvey, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McTaggart, Bob
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Worthington, Tony


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Martlew, Eric
Mrs. Llin Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, up to the end of clause 22.
Amendment made. No. 44, in page 13, line 33 at end insert—
'(3) Schedule (Community charges: enforcement) below (which contains provisions about the recovery of sums due, including sums due as penalties) shall have effect:—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 2

COMMUNITY CHARGES: ADMINISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 78, line 32, leave out `and recovery'.
No 48,in page 78, line 34, leave out 'and recovery'.
No 49,in page 80, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 50.
No 50,in page 81, line 35, leave out
`as a simple contract debt'.
No. 59, in page 82, line 47, at end insert—
`11A.—(1) Regulations under this Schedule may include provision that a certification officer shall supply to a registration officer for a charging authority such information as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below and fulfils the following conditions—

(a) it is in the possession or control of the certification officer,
(b) the registration officer requests the certification officer to supply it, and
(c) it is requested by the registration officer for the purpose of carrying out his functions under this Part.

(2) The information is—

(a) the name of each person who (on the day the request is made) is undertaking a full-time course of education at the educational establishment of the certification officer and has his sole or main residence in the area of the charging authority, and
(b) the address of the sole or main residence of each such person.

(3) The regulations may include provision that the information is to be supplied in a prescribed form and within a prescribed period of the request being made.

(4) A certification officer is an individual who is a certification officer by virtue of regulations under section (Students) above.

(5) The educational establishment of a certification officer is the educational establishment as regards which he is the certification officer.'.

No. 51, in page 85, line 5, leave out 'or 6'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 3

COMMUNITY CHARGES: PENALTIES

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 86, line 46, leave out `or 11' and insert', 11 or 11A'.
No. 52, in page 87, line 34, leave out 'and recovery'.
No. 53, in page 87, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
No. 54, in page 88, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above' and insert 'this paragraph'—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 22

APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 14, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 57, in page 14, line 2, at end insert—
`(cc) any designation of an individual as a certification officer under regulations under section (Students) below,'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 23

REBATES

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 14, line 24, leave out clause 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 14, line 24, after `(1)' insert
`after consultation with local authority representatives, the Child Poverty Action Group and such organisations which appear to him to be concerned.'.

No. 229, in page 14, line 39, at end insert—
`( ) The amendments shall provide that rebates of 100 per cent. of the community charge shall be available to—

(a) people entitled to receive:

(i) income support with disablement premium;
(ii) income support with pensioners' premium;
(iii) attendance allowance;
(iv) mobility allowance; or
(v) severe disablement allowance;


(b) people who are registered blind or partially sighted'.

No. 230, in page 14, line 39, at end insert—
`No regulations shall be made under this section until the Secretary of State has presented to Parliament a report on the effects of the rebate scheme on elderly, disabled or handicapped people.'.

Government new clause 8—Rebates: additional provisions.

Government new clause 9—Rebates: Extent of provision.

Government new clause 16—Social security—
`Schedule (Social security) below (which amends the Social Security Act 1986 so as to make provision for benefits in respect of community charges in England and Wales and Scotland) shall have effect.'.

Amendment (a), in line 1, at beginning insert
`After making a report to Parliament on how community charge affects families and those on low incomes, the Secretary of State shall produce a scheme for rebates up to 100 per cent. and'.

Amendment (b), at end add
`providing rebates extending up to 100% of liability to an authority's community charge using an identical system of rebate entitlement assessment for all individuals over 18.'.

Government amendments Nos. 123, 233, 236, 234, 121, 122 and 124.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 124, in paragraph 6, at end insert—
'31 (H) A person who is

(a) entitled to receive:

(i) income support with disablement premium;
(ii) income support with pensioner premium;
(iii) attendance allowance;
(iv) mobility allowance; or
(v) severe disablement allowance; or


(b) registered blind or partially sighted,
shall be entitled to community charge benefit of 100 per cent. of their liability for community charge,'.

Mr. Ridley: In Committee I said that we would replace with new provisions the provisions of the existing clause 23 which deals with rebates. Perhaps I may quickly explain the technicality of that.
Clause 23 provides for regulations amending the Social Security Act 1986 so that a rebate scheme can be made. That scheme will be made in further regulations. The clause 23 system, therefore, envisaged two sets of regulations, the one preparing the way for the other. The amendments which we are now discussing do away with the need for one of those sets of regulations by making on the face of this Bill amendments directly to the Social Security Act.
The details of the scheme will then be set out in regulations made under the amended Act and will be subject, of course, to full consultation with the local authority associations and other interested bodies. The House will also have an opportunity to debate the regulations in due course and to decide on an affirmative resolution.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State will be aware that the amendments introduce legislation which will apply to Scotland. There is no Scottish Minister on the Front Bench to answer questions about that. In view of the urgency of finding out exactly what this flagship of Tory Government policy means before the local elections in Scotland, can the Secretary of State tell us when and how the consultations will take place in Scotland before 5 May?

Mr. Ridley: Of course, the amendments will apply to Scotland. Under the Social Security Act, when it is amended, regulations will be made affecting Scotland in advance of England, and also affecting England at a later stage when the community charge comes into force. We cannot make regulations in relation to the community charge until the Bill is enacted.
The central amendment is amendment No. 124 which sets out in a new schedule the detailed changes necessary to the Social Security Act to enable a system of community charge benefits to be established. The schedule adds community charge benefit to the other income-related benefits of the Act, and sets out the criteria for entitlement in general terms. These are similar to the entitlement criteria for the other income-related benefits. It sets out, again in general terms, the way in which the amount of benefit is to be calculated, and makes provisions for regulations to cover benefit for people who will be paying residual rates in the transitional period. Provision is made for regulations to set out the way in which couples are to be assessed for benefit.
The new schedule specifies that payment may be in the form either of a reduction in people's community charge bills or of a cash payment, if necessary. Benefit will be administered, as is housing benefit, by local authorities. The new schedule provides for this and for regulations setting out the administrative details. It provides also for a scheme of subsidies to be paid to local authorities in respect of community charge benefit.
Amendments Nos. 233, 236 and 234 are technical amendments designed to ensure that community charge benefit can operate in Scotland—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) heard that—on the same basis as the rest of Great Britain when it is introduced.
In short, these amendments pave the way for a detailed scheme of benefits to be paid to people with low incomes. The amendments themselves are technical and do not


contain details of the scheme itself. As I have said, that will be for later regulations which will be the subject of full consultation, and debate and vote in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be difficult about this, but it is urgent because of what is happening in Scotland. Can the Secretary of State explain exactly what action will be taken by the Scottish Office or by his Department to clarify things north of the border?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am coming to the details of the rebate scheme which will be put forward in due course by the Government. The regulations cannot be made until this Bill has become law because it amends the Social Security Act to enable the regulations to be made. Therefore, until this Bill becomes law, there is no possibility of making the regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
I was going to explain exactly how the rebate system will work.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once more only.

Mr. Douglas: It is one thing for the right hon. Gentleman to plead in aid that he needs to get this Bill through both Houses, but we have a Scottish Act and we are up against a time scale. If the Secretary of State wants to plead that in aid in relation to England and Wales, I can understand that constitutionally, but the same argument cannot apply to Scotland, where we have an Act of Parliament on the statute book. Why have the Government been so niggardly and laggardly in explaining so that we can understand what the "great" benefits will be for the Scottish people from these measures?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman will let me tell him, I am coming to that. He has interrupted twice, asking me for what I have been trying to tell him. I do not know what more I can say than that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government has sent a letter to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), giving the full effects of the new scheme. Of course, the scheme must take account of the changes in the Budget, which were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the improved rebate scheme, which I announced last week, and which greatly alters the benefits, the figuring and every detail of the rebate scheme. It is not proper, or possible, to give a full account of the true nature of the rebate scheme until those two aspects have been considered.
The Government's scheme, as improved last week, is extremely generous. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) tried to pretend otherwise in his winding-up speech on Monday night, but he grossly misled the House in his figures and missed the main point. The rebates are much more helpful than he alleged. I shall quote from his speech and then put the facts before the House, and the House may judge from what I say. He said:
A couple with young children will receive no rebate if they earn over £130 a week".
In fact, a couple with net earnings of £130 a week will receive a rebate of 75p on the average community charge of £8·62 a week for two people.

Mr. Rooker: From what column is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

Mr. Ridley: I do not have the precise column, but the hon. Gentleman will find it in his speech.
The rebate entitlement for that couple would run out not at £130 but at £131·77. The important point, however, is that the hon. Gentleman was quoting net incomes although he talked about earnings. A net income of £130 for that couple means a gross income of £170, or 81 per cent. of the national average wage. For a community charge of £300, that rebate would run out at £193 a week gross, or £10,036 a year.

Mr. Rooker: I have found the reference. The right hon. Gentleman is not very well briefed if he does not have the column numbers. I have found the comments in column 634. I went on to refer to a couple with a net income. Every reference was to net incomes. Why did not the right ho n. Gentleman say the same thing in response to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—it is column 619; I have column reference numbers—on the same point about a childless couple who will pay the full charge if their income is more than £100 a week? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get his facts right?

Mr. Ridley: I did not intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr because I wanted to check the facts first. The hon. Gentleman said:
a couple with no children will receive no rebate if their earnings are over £100 a week.
That statement is not true. A childless couple on £100 a week would get a rebate of £1·11 towards the average charge for a couple, which is £8·62 a week.

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State is misleading the House. Why does he not read the next paragraph?

Mr. Ridley: Rebate entitlement would run out at £104·17. Again, the hon. Gentleman was quoting net incomes. A net income of £100 a week would gross up to £123 a week. The hon. Gentleman said:
a couple with no children will receive no rebate if their earnings are over £100 a week.
The hon. Gentleman spoke not of their net earnings but of their earnings. He should have said net earnings. If the hon. Gentleman means earnings, it is not £100 a week but £123 a week. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
A couple with a net income of £100 per week will be expected to pay £10, that is, 10 per cent. of their net income, in local authority taxes.
The hon. Gentleman arrived at £10 by doubling the figure of £5, which he described as "near enough" the community charge per adult in the average area. In fact, the average charge per adult is £4·31, which doubles up to £8·62 for a couple. As explained, that couple would also receive a rebate of £1·11, which would bring their charge down to £7·51, which is 7·5 per cent. of their net income. The hon. Gentleman claimed that it would be 10 per cent. of their net income, which was totally wrong.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr said:
the worker under 25 years of age … will receive no rebate once his earned net income goes above £50 a week.
The hon. Gentleman got it right that time.

Mr. Rooker: I did not. I was '75p out, and I am sorry.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman was 2·5 per cent. out. He said that that worker's
poll tax will be £5, or 10 per cent. of his income."— [Official Report, 18 April 1988 Vol. 131, c. 634.]


That was what the hon. Gentleman majored on. In that case, the rebate would be 61p on an average charge of £4·31, leaving a charge of £3·70, or less than 7·5 per cent. of net income. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in both forecasts of 10 per cent. of net income. The answer is 7·5 per cent. of net income and, of course, a very much smaller proportion of gross income. In fact, no one pays more than about 7·5 per cent. for the average community charge. I doubt whether the hon. Members who listened to the hon. Member for Perry Barr that night realised just how generous the Government scheme was and just how much the hon. Gentleman was misleading the House by quoting those statistics.

Mr. Rooker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ridley: Only if the hon. Gentleman will apologise.

Mr. Rooker: Where I have rounded and used average figures—£5 a week when the amount is under £5—the comment is fair enough. I do not want to mislead anyone, but my point was that the scheme is not very generous. I used rounded figures and on one occasion neglected to use the word "net" in front of the income concerned, and I apologise. Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the figures in the next paragraph when I said that someone earning over £400 a week would pay only 1·6 per cent. of his net income in poll tax? Will the right hon. Gentleman correct me and say where I was wrong there?

Mr. Ridley: I never said that the hon. Gentleman was wrong on that point. I said—the hon. Gentleman has now admitted it—that, by shaving, rounding and making a few mistakes, the hon. Gentleman got the figures wrong. He majored on the point that there would be people who would pay 10 per cent. of their net incomes on the standard average community charge, whereas the figure is 7·5 per cent. If I had made such a mistake, the hon. Gentleman, rightly, would have taken me to the cleaners. I hope that he will acknowledge that he has been taken to the cleaners as a result.
I have now introduced the Government measures. I should like to hear what Opposition Members have to say on their measures and I shall reply later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Matthew Taylor.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Taylor: I am not sure whether this is an intervention. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should make it clear to the House that, unless I had got it wrong, the Secretary of State had sat down. I proposed the Question and I paused for some moments before calling the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). I see that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) wishes to catch my eye and I shall bear that in mind.

Mr. Taylor: The Labour Front Bench spokesmen made the specific point yesterday that they wanted a contribution from the official Opposition. I am sure that an official Opposition contribution will come in a few

moments, but, for the moment, let us have a contribution from another party. I am sure that the Labour party will have its turn.
The rebate proposals were overshadowed at the start of the debate on the poll tax by the leaking of a Government document regarding rebates which exposed the Government's callous attitude towards the poor. We all know that the Budget, the social security changes and the poll tax will penalise the poor. That has been made clear time after time, not just by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members.
The leaked document put the situation in black and white and revealed that, while giving so generously with one hand, as the Government said they were, they had in fact considered ways of clawing back the money. That was indeed callous and calculating. The document stated:
Careful attention should be given to the presentation of the terms of any change to rebates. This would need to be put in positive terms and in easily comprehensible layman's language".
The Prime Minister claims that the document has now been withdrawn, but the truth is that, in clear layman's language, the Government were trying to do a dirty behind the scenes. The Prime Minister and others may now state that there is no possibility of that being introduced; but we must now seriously consider whether there might be other schemes in the Cabinet, proposing other ways of taking back the money from the very people to whom the Government claim to be so generous.
If we consider the Government's supposed generosity in the new rebate scheme, there appears to be a significant failure there too. For 26 million people, the poll tax will still be a flat rate charge, under which a new teacher on a salary of £7,899 a year will pay precisely the same as a company director on £40,000 a year. That is fundamentally wrong and there is nothing in the rebate system that changes that fact.
Ministers may shake their heads vigorously and say, "No, no, no", but, at the same time, Conservative Back-Benchers say, "Yes, yes, yes. You're right. Something should be done about it."

Mr. Butterfill: I am a Conservative Back-Bencher and I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is wrong to say that teachers will pay the same as a company director because the company director will be contributing far more through national taxation and thereby through the 50 per cent. than the Government subvention to the rate support grant.

Mr. Taylor: I have been hoping that somebody would make that point because the Conservative party is sending out a leaflet to constituencies. On one side of that leaflet, there is a standard text from Central Office. One section of that text points out how much more a company manager gives because of the VAT and income tax that he pays, but, in a different part of the page, it claims that poor people have never made any contribution to local government. Where do their VAT payments come in? The leaflet assumes that the poor do not pay VAT. If only the poor did not pay VAT. But they pay it and suffer far more as a consequence in terms of their ability to buy things.
Furthermore, the capital rule that has been introduced in respect of the Social Security Bill will apply to poll tax rebates through the housing benefit rules. People with capital of over £6,000 will receive no help from rebates. They are yet another section of society which is missing out


and desperately needs such help. How can one say to an old-age pensioner, "You should not be entitled to help because you have had the good sense and thrift to put aside £6,000 towards your old age"? Those people will get nothing from the rebate scheme, as it was originally proposed or as it is now put forward.
Many pensioners and others will look at the rebate scheme and think that the Government have offered some help to them. They may think that they cannot possibly be expected to pay the full charge, but, when the time comes in 1990 and they start to receive the bills, they will find that that is precisely what they are expected to do.
The change in the taper does not change the 80 per cent. ceiling imposed on rebates and, again, that will affect the poorest. Those who receive the full help of the benefit system will be precisely those to whom any changes in the rebate scheme introduced by the Secretary of State will make no difference. The artificial age barrier that has been written in stone in the Social Security Bill means that those under 25 years of age will not even receive the same help with their poll tax contributions as those over 25.
Those people earn the lowest wages and find it particularly difficult to obtain jobs, particularly if they have missed out after leaving school and have become part of the long-term jobless at an early age. Those people who find the lowest forms of paid employment—there are many of them in such parts of the country as my own, where wages are 20 per cent. below the national average—will be penalised still more strongly than their colleagues.

Mr. Leigh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on a remark made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government last night. He said:
a newly qualified nurse would be likely to pay more local income tax than community charge in every local authority in England. In Camden her bill could be as high as £1,500. in Manchester £375, and in Durham £300."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 751.]
Will that account for more than 10 per cent. of the nurse's income? What sort of rebate system does the Liberal party propose for a newly qualified nurse?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not listen to the debate at other times when he is in the Chamber. The figures quoted by the Government are based on their system of local income tax. Those figures are not based on our system. We gave those figures to the Minister yesterday and the figures that he quotes are quite simply wrong. Student nurses will do better under our local income tax system. We have given the figures to show that fact and, if the Minister cares to go through them, no doubt he will find this in them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: When my hon. Friend was making his point about the scheme that was leaked in the document in the last few days, the Secretary of State was nodding his head and saying, "Shame, shame." The Secretary of State can put the record straight in one of two ways. He can either release the whole of the correspondence, so that we know what was really devised, or he can give a guarantee to the House that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, the scheme will not be altered to anyone's detriment. Would my hon. Friend like to ask the Secretary of State if he is willing to give those assurances?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State heard my hon. Friend's point.
There is one other point worth making. In a proper system of democracy, where the only secrets are those that directly affect the national security interest and not just the interest of the Government, we would be able to look at those documents. We would be able to judge the Government, if not this week, then in the near future, after the immediate decisions have been taken. I hope that the Secretary of State will come forward with the appropriate measure, as he should.
The amendments are designed to meet many of the difficulties that I have mentioned. Above all, the amendments are about giving 100 per cent. rebates to those who need them. The Government have acknowledged the need for people on benefit to have such support. They have said that they will uprate benefits to cover people's 20 per cent. contributions to the poll tax. By making such a commitment, they cannot argue that those who currently do not contribute should contribute from the money that they now have. In one sense, they are accepting that those people should be fully compensated, but they have created the most appallingly complicated way of doing so, which hurts those people most in need of help and those who find it hardest to manage the money that they have and their day-to-day existence.
All hon. Members know through their experience in constituency surgeries and through correspondence that there are people who are simply not able to manage their affairs and who get into trouble. We are loading another difficulty on to them because they will receive a bill that they will not be able to meet. More than that, the rebate will go only to the more fortunate. Whole groups of people will not be fully compensated by an increase in their benefit to meet that 20 per cent. It will be done on an average basis and not on the money that they are asked to pay.
That may be done, as the Government say it is, to increase what they call accountability, but they mean to increase the tendency to vote Conservative because they believe that otherwise people will be penalised. Obviously, it will not work like that because this has a historic basis.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
The basis of local authority spending has been built up over many years, as has the Government's assessment of what local government should be spending. It is subjective at that. The Government can manipulate the figures according to how they wish to work the grant system, and they do. On that basis people will be penalised, not through any fault of their own, but because of decisions which were taken quite possibly at a time when they were not voting in the local authority. It is inconceivable that Camden, Tower Hamlets or any other authority will suddenly be able to adjust its charges because of the poll tax and because these people will have to pay it. Even if the Government are right about accountability and the rest of it, it will take years to help those people, and that is not fair on them.

Mr. Butterfill: rose—

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is jumping up and down like a Jack-in-the-box, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Butterfill: I wanted to intervene before the hon. Gentleman left that point. He suggested that we had the political motive that people would vote Conservative. Was he implying that only Conservative authorities were likely


to be prudent and have lower rates, and that authorities controlled by his party and other Opposition parties would always have high rates?

Mr. Taylor: Interestingly, in this year's round of rate increases, we managed to have the lowest average of all parties, so the hon. Gentleman does not make a good point. We have fundamental criticisms of the present grant system. I believe that a report today suggested that the gains would be almost exclusively in Tory constituencies, but that is not surprising when the grant system is biased in that way.
Tower Hamlets will be one of the hardest hit by these proposals. It has an acknowledged problem with supplying housing to an immigrant community. The need is not being met under Government financial aid. That is an exact example of the way people will be penalised for reasons that have nothing to do with them as individuals and, indeed, have little to do with any local party. A most draconian party could be determined to cut whatever it wanted, yet still have to spend substantial sums.
Do the Government intend to uprate the benefits as they claim they will, even in so far as this is written into the legislation? Ministers have steadfastly refused to assure us that the uprating of the 20 per cent. will be maintained. We accept that the Government will uprate benefits to meet the 20 per cent. contribution, albeit on national average figures. However, there have been reports that the Government intend to claw that back in coming years by failing to increase benefits as a whole in line with inflation. That appeared in The Guardian on 23 September 1987.
In Committee we asked on more than one occasion for a categorical assurance from the Minister that that would not be so, and we failed to get it. Will the Government give us that absolutely categorical assurance now because it is important that it should be given? In the light of the leaked Cabinet document, they must understand why we believe that it is so important that this assurance should be given.
The amendments relate to the treatment of those under 25. The age barrier written into the social security legislation will penalise the youngest in society—those on the lowest wages. Even with the new tapers, or an average community charge of £224 a year, it has been estimated that people over 25 will lose all help on income of about £58 a week. But for a person under 25 the comparable figure is about £50. I have not heard an explanation or justification for that and I hope that the Government will accept the need to amend that, so that at least these rebates are not based on something already iniquitous that becomes more iniquitous as a result of the introduction of the poll tax.
I hope that the Secretary of State can answer a specific point. Thank goodness, we have gained something from our debates. We appear to have had something of a minor victory on the collective community charge. It was repeatedly said, and the Minister assured us he would respond, that there were problems with the collective charge for people in hostels for the homeless, because they would have to pay the tax in full and then get a rebate, instead of paying only the 20 per cent. charge in the first place. The Minister said that he would look into the problem and, as I understand the regulations, I think that

he has met that point. I hope that he can confirm that minor victory because the technicalities make it hard to be absolutely certain.
Those are the reasons why we are not at all happy about the rebate system. It is nothing like as generous as is claimed. These amendments do much to meet the specific problems that we raised.

Mr. Leigh: The rebates are too generous.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will not find that when his constituents spell out their financial difficulties. In three or four years' time he will be writing letters to Ministers and the Secretary of State, begging them to intervene to help constituents who have got into financial difficulties.

Dr. Cunningham: These amendments are about rebates. Government amendment No. 120 rewrites the legal basis in the Bill under which rebate schemes will operate. In other words, the Government are not to rely on the social security legislation, as the Secretary of State said, but will include in the Bill a new schedule, Government amendment No. 124. The Government's need to write that into the Bill contrasts starkly with their refusal to include safeguards on civil liberties and privacy. The fact that they are making that change does nothing to improve the rebate schemes or to change advantageously the circumstances of millions of people who will be adversely affected by the poll tax.
We already know of the total inadequacy of these provisions because we have seen them in the recently implemented social security changes. Are the Government so proud of those new, mean, unfair and divisive social security provisions that they simply want to replicate them in the Bill? The answer is yes. Whatever word the Secretary of State might have used to describe the Government's proposals, he chose "generous" which was most inappropriate. He castigated my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for misleading the House. No more misleading statement has been made this week in the discussion of these matters than that these proposals are generous.
The replication of the social security provisions means that pensioners with lifetime savings of as little as £6,000 in a bank or building society will receive no rebate of any kind. That cannot possibly be described as generous. Is it generous, for example, to implement proposals which mean that two pensioners living in their own home, whether a flat, bungalow, council flat, council bungalow or sheltered dwelling scheme in Dulwich, will pay more than a millionaire living in a mansion in Dulwich? Could that possibly be described by any reasonable person as generous? Of course not. It is grossly misleading to suggest that the scheme is in any way generous.
The scheme also means that an unemployed person, perhaps someone with a family who has lost his or her job in his or her forties or fifties and has redundancy payments of as little as £6,000, will not receive any rebate. In many cases, that will contrast sharply with the circumstances of the person who may have sacked him. In today's economic climate, a company director could easily be earning as much as £6,000 a week, yet will pay the same poll tax. Is


that generous? Would the Secretary of State like to comment and give his view as to whether he thinks that is generous?
Young people under 25 years of age also will be heavily discriminated against because there is no provision for a 100 per cent. rebate. The 3 million households that pay nothing now under the present rate rebate system—or did not do so until the beginning of this month—will now have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the charge. Is it generous to make 3 million households pay 20 per cent. when previously, under the much criticised rating system, they paid nothing? Of course that is not generous and the Secretary of State knows it.
I come to the Minister's much lauded—by him if by no one else—concession of last week. He appeared to be making a concession, but what will it mean in practice? The Secretary of State made great play about the figures. It has taken him and his hon. Friends until today to produce any figures. Those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr were provided at a few hours' notice by the House of Commons Library. It has taken the right hon. Gentleman nearly a week to come up with the same figures.
I left the Chamber after Question Time today and received a telephone call from the BBC who said, "The Secretary of State has written you a letter about the rebate scheme." I said, "Oh no he hasn't." They replied, "Oh yes he has—we know all about it."

Mr. Ridley: Was it another leak?

Dr. Cunningham: No, it was not a leak. The letter was deliberately released by the right hon. Gentleman's office before it even arrived in my office. I had to phone the Secretary of State's office to obtain the letter that he was supposed to have sent to me. That is how proud he was of publicising his information about the rebates; he left it until the last possible moment. To cap it all—if that is an appropriate phrase—when the letter did arrive, it did not give the figures. I had to telephone the Secretary of State's office again and ask them to fax that information to me.
What do those figures mean? We know of the Government's intentions because of the leaked correspondence between the Secretary of State's office and the Prime Minister. In case Conservative Members have not yet had an opportunity to read that correspondence, I have brought along some copies, which I table for them to read. I hope that they will do so, because they are very important documents. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he did not understand the full story because he had not seen all the letters.
Today, we asked the Secretary of State's office to give us copies of all the rest. If the Minister wants us to argue on all the facts, why does he not provide copies of the other letters? Not surprisingly, he refuses to do so, because he does not want the House to have all the facts. That is the reality of the situation. Why does he not put all the correspondence on the Table now so that his right hon. and hon. Friends and the Opposition can discuss the matter in the way that the Prime Minister apparently wants? Of course the Minister will not do so, because he wants to keep it all dark and because he knows how disgusting are all the manoeuvrings.

Mr. Ridley: I would not say that.

Dr. Cunningham: I say that it is disgusting for a Secretary of State in the British Government to make a public announcement that a concession is being made that will cost £130 million, if the House will forgive me for using round numbers, when at the same time the Government are planning to make others liable for the poll tax pay for that concession. The Government are even talking about changing the slope on the housing benefit scheme, to claw back more money from people even before the alleged concession can be implemented. If all that is not disgusting, I do not know what is.

Mr. Butterfill: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should just print the money? Surely someone has to pay, and it must be either the general tax payer or the poll tax payer. The money cannot be manufactured out of thin air.

Dr. Cunningham: Of course not, but I contrast the hon. Gentleman's comments with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement. He did not seem to have any difficulty finding the money then. Money did not seem to be a very scarce commodity when the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box reducing taxes for the very well off in society. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman standing up then and asking his right hon. Friend where the money was to come from; he knew that it was coming from the poor and those on low incomes.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that his questions about where the money is to come from are just a little partial on this occasion. The Government were awash with money a few weeks ago when they wanted to help the very well off in society and reduce upper tax rates to 40 per cent. There was no concern then on the Government Benches about where the money was to come from; there was not a frisson, not a ripple. Conservative Members were waving their Order Papers in the air at the thought of all that lovely money showering down on those who were well off.
The hon. Gentleman is also fond of saying that problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them. The Government have certainly been throwing money at the well off as fast as they can. Money seems to solve their problems quite nicely, thank you very much. I say to the hon. Gentleman that his intervention was rather ill advised.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that, while Ministers were telling their Back Benchers facts that were far from the truth, by the end of the week No. 10 was very busy organising the Sunday newspapers, so that The Observer, The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Times all carried identical front page stories saying that the poll tax revolt among Conservative Members was all a plot by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to get into No. 10? Mr. Ingham must have been working overtime.

Dr. Cunningham: Indeed, all sorts of stories were put about concerning the revolt by Government supporters over the iniquities of the proposals. It seems that anything was possible or usable in trying to discredit right hon. and hon. Members involved. When I reflect on some of the things said about them, they must flinch that, even now, Government Whips are again approaching them in the Lobbies, touching them on the elbow and saying, "Well, dear boy, you will be in the Division Lobby next Monday


night for the Third Reading, won't you?" I hope that they will think long and hard before joining their colleagues in the Lobbies and voting for this appalling legislation.
I return to the nitpicking of the Secretary of State over the rebate scheme. I shall give him some examples of his generosity. It is true that if one takes the average poll tax in England of £224, a single person aged under 25 with take-home pay of £50·75 per week—which is what he has to live on—will enjoy no rebate. To ensure that my figures were right, I asked one of my friends and advisers to make the calculation. It showed that such a person will have to pay a weekly poll tax of £4·30, which is 8·5 per cent. of his take-home pay. A pensioned couple in the same circumstances with a net income of £110·40 will have a weekly poll tax bill of £8·60, or 7·8 per cent. of their income. They also will receive no rebate. In inner London, where the poll tax will be higher, the figures will of course be worse.
8 pm
The Secretary of State need not try to—I hesitate to use the word—mislead the House about the generosity of the measure. He knows very well what is happening to these people. The now famous exchange of correspondence includes a letter from his private office from one of the civil servants who are of the highest integrity, in this instance Deborah Lamb. The letter points out that the Secretary of State himself expressed concern because
in his view, the marginal tax rate illustrated in that minute of 90·1 per cent. for low earners is already excessive, particularly after the income tax reductions in the Budget".
I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) listened to that. Even the Secretary of State recognises, at least in private, the unfairness of the Government's approach following the Budget. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's correspondence says. But then he comes to the House and tries to convince us and the country that he is being generous. Of course he is not.
By definition, because of the averaging on uprating of social benefits, people in areas where 20 per cent. exceeds the national average will be additionally out of pocket. In some cases, especially in inner London, they will be substantially out of pocket. In other areas, without reason, they will be gainers. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) who said, "We accept it." My hon. Friends and I certainly do not accept it, because it does not properly recompense even those people who have to pay 20 per cent. of this appalling tax.
During Question Time today, I asked the Secretary of State what he had to say about his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet at the commemorative service at Westminster abbey this morning. He did not reply. I shall give him a second opportunity. In the responses in the service to launch the Church urban fund the Archbishop of Canterbury asked:
What is he sending us to do?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and, for all I know, other Ministers who were there—responded with gusto and alacrity:
To share our wealth with those in our cities who are poor, powerless or disadvantaged, and to help them to build a new future for themselves and for us all.
Does the Secretary of State really believe that the poll tax will contribute to that aim? Does he agree with that? Of

course, we know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with it from the many quotations on the record which were referred to in Monday's debate.
Our amendment (a) to new clause 16 introduces the principle of 100 per cent. rebates. It is possible, because of the guillotine, that we will not be able to express our support for the amendment, although I hope that arrangements can be agreed that will enable us to do so. Let me say, however, that we strongly support the principle of 100 per cent. rebates, and I urge all hon. Members to vote for the amendment. If it is not possible for us to record a positive vote, we shall express our disgust at the meanness of the proposals by voting against the Government's amendments.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on this issue. We are much closer to agreement on it than on most other issues, as I have made clear in my votes—and non-votes—on this measure.
Although I intend to address my remarks to rebates, it is a pleasure at last to rise to speak on the Bill. I tried gallantly to do so on Second Reading and again in Monday's debate on new clause 1. Let me now briefly say that, while I am very grateful for any concessions that help poorer people, the rebates as offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are insufficient to change my mind on the Bill.
I do not wish to appear ungrateful. My right hon. Friend knows that I am a nice sort of person. If he were to make a concession that in any way altered the principle of the Bill—as was so ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and those who voted with him—rather than a belated concession that helps the poor but is essentially financial, we might reconsider our position.
My interest in the subject is fairly long-standing. I do not expect hon. Members to remember it, as it may not have been particularly remarkable, but I made my maiden speech on the subject back in March 1974. Then, and in subsequent speeches over the years—for instance, on ten-minute Bills—I have urged the abolition of the rating system. What I have never urged or believed in, rebates or no rebates, is a community charge, let alone a uniform business rate.
Let me explain briefly why the rebates have not changed my mind, in spite of my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Essentially, the principle remains as unfair now as it did before the concessions. The ability to pay is crucial. The hon. Member for Copeland has done my job for me with the facts and figures, but I have a list that has been cribbed from hon. Members on both sides of the House—£1 here, £5 there and £10 there. The fact remains that we are dealing with the principle of a poll tax that is fundamentally wrong. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, 26 million people will pay the standard rate of poll tax. It has also been confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—in response to a very able intervention on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—that the £6,000 capital limit applies in this instance.
Another principle that is unaltered by the rebates is that of the nature of the poll tax, which is undisturbed by the fact that it represents only 25 per cent. of overall local government revenue. I hope that I was not alone in being slightly amused yesterday morning when, lo and behold,


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made one of his earlier broadcasts—after the 7 o'clock news—following the result of the vote on new clause 1. I waited for him to say, with all the eloquence that he has displayed over the past year, that this was not a tax but merely a charge on 25 per cent. and that the remaining 75 per cent. would arrive one way or another through taxation. But, in an able and dazzling interview lasting some four minutes, he referred to the charge as a tax no fewer than eight times—I counted them. I wonder whether that has anything to do with a change of mind on his part, or with the other place, which no doubt will be considering his earlier utterances.
Another fundamental point is that the 25 per cent. leaves 75 per cent. That is another reason why the rebates are insufficient for me: the 75 per cent. will become a matter of Government control, either through grant or through the uniform business rate. The House would be foolish if it consented to such a degree of Government control.
My third reason—rebates or no rebates—is that we cannot govern this country as if it were entirely ruled by extreme Left-wing socialist authorities—it is not. This measure is not the best way to deal with those parts of the country that are so ruled.
Finally, although I am not ungrateful for the concessions—I welcome the rebates—and shall not be voting against the Government on this, I slightly resent aspersions cast against us at the weekend that we are trying to embarrass the Government. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East was terribly kind about last weekend. It is perhaps easier for me than for him to say that it was not one of the most angelic political weekends that I can recollect. I say, as one Back-Bench rebel on this matter, that I am not out to embarrass the Government. I am not nature's greatest rebel, but when something is as fundamentally wrong as this, and the decisions on it have been taken in the sequence that they have been, it is the duty of at least some of us to stand up and be counted. The late concession of these rebates serves only to add to the strength of our argument. The necessity for them shows the fundamental weakness of the measure.

Mr. Tom Clarke: My high regard for the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was justified the other evening when he voted against the Government, and when, the following day, The Guardian awarded him a knighthood. That was evidence that virtue is its own reward. I agree with many of the things that he said this evening, and he will forgive me if I concentrate on amendment (a) to new clause 16, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred.
I want to talk about the problems of the disabled, the frail and the elderly, whom the amendments could help. Even if there were a distant prospect of the amendments being carried, the measure that the Government support and the legislation for Scotland that is already on the statute book will do untold damage to the most vulnerable people in society, and their very existence invites urgent repeal.
The Secretary of State said—and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland was right to mention this—that this was a generous measure. His capacity to use the English language in that inspiring way is not shared by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, by Mencap, by RADAR, by the Royal National Institute for

the Blind, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the Spastics Society or any such organisation that I know of, nationally or in my constituency, which has considered the poll tax.
A few weeks ago, during the Easter recess, I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), where I saw the excellent Edinvar community care project. Because of the interest of the community, of Edinburgh district council, Edinburgh university and the people of Edinburgh, that housing project provides a place to live for six people who have mental handicaps. They live in the community and are helped by others there—people who signed a housing missive knowing that help would be expected from them. I was there because of the consequences of the Government's social security provisions. Because of the reductions in housing benefit, there was a disgraceful question mark over whether the project could continue. Happily, mainly due to the help of Edinburgh district council and the flexibility of civil servants in the DHSS, that problem has been resolved since.
8.15 pm
The Secretary of State speaks of generosity, but when those six people come to pay the poll tax the question will arise again. Such payment cannot be a viable proposition. I hope that the project can be saved, but I know that community care in many parts of the country will be challenged openly by this provision, and it is disgraceful that Ministers should utter platitudes and give us statistics when they must know of the damage that their poll tax will do to people who are disabled, mentally handicapped, the elderly and others. Bearing in mind the exemption that the Government deliberately introduced in residential establishments, we shall find that people living in them, whatever their wealth—and many of them are there because of the help that the Government are determined to give to private owners through the DHSS—will benefit from the exemption and so triumph over those still living in the community.
So, despite the fact that the number of places in no way meets the demand, if people in community care do not have the sorts of rebates to which my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland referred, they will naturally look for places in residential establishments. Because of the difficulties of access, many people in residential establishments who might be able to live in the community and would often be encouraged to do so will refuse to do so. This measure, therefore, offers no help to those in residential care or those in the community and is a further sign that the Government have no strategy to deal with community care for the most vulnerable people in society.
I want to refer briefly to two important reports. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has read them, but he and the rest of the Cabinet are obliged to assure the House that there is some co-ordination of policy objectives. That hardly seems to be the case now. The Griffiths report on community care does not coincide with what the Government are proposing. The Government have riot sought to publicise the report, so I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what Sir Roy said:
If community care means anything, it is that responsibility is placed as near to the individual and his carers as possible.
He also said:
It cannot he managed in detail from Whitehall".


What is the poll tax if not an attempt by Whitehall to manage in detail?
Lady Wagner said:
Every adult person entering a residential establishment with a view to an extended stay should be entitled to a trial period during which nothing would be done to dispossess them of their previous accommodation.
Does anybody really think that the system of elderly people going into care and having that trial period, during which they will be expected to pay the poll tax, will work? The truth is that the Government are introducing chaos instead of community care.
There are many defects in the so-called community charge. That view is shared by the overwhelming majority of British people. When the time comes to repeal the legislation the people of Great Britain will accept that, at long last, the House will have accepted its responsibilities to the most vulnerable people within our society. Clearly, this measure is a long way from achieving that.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is absolutely right. There appears to be a total lack of co-ordination in the Government's policy on disabled people. The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends—Nos. 229 and 230—which are combined with this bank of amendments, try to ensure that a rebate of up to 100 per cent. of community charge is available to certain specifically defined groups of disabled people.
The Bill will make disabled people suffer. It takes no account of ability to pay. The organisations to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred would have preferred some form of banded system or progressive system of taxation that would take into account the needs of disabled people and their resources. Allowance could also have been made for their additional needs. In the absence of any such progressive system, there needs to be a better provision for rebates.
The advantages of our amendments are, first, that they offer a means of defining disability that is as automatic and unobtrusive as possible. Secondly, the amendments are compatible with the principles of good community care, in that they seek to ensure that there are no financial penalties for people seeking to move into the community or financial disincentives to stay in the community. The hon. Member for Monklands, West made that point. In other contexts, he and I have argued about the need to ensure that policies of other Departments supplement and co-ordinate the community care policies that the Department of Health and Social Security is advocating.
The hon. Gentleman referred to two recent reports. There is also the Audit Commission report. A series of reports go down the same road. We should certainly look for greater recognition of disabled people within major legislation, such as the Bill.
As the Bill stands, disabled people will lose disproportionately. While, to some extent, the present rating system is progressive, the poll tax will be regessive, falling hardest on those who are least able to pay. Disabled people are disproportionately represented among low income groups and will therefore be hit harder by the poll tax. As many as 40 per cent. of long-term sick and disabled people have low incomes, compared with 23·3 per cent. of the non-disabled population, according to the DHSS low income families review.
In considering ability to pay, it is important also to bear in mind that an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that half of all employees with disabilities had incomes below 42 per cent. of average earnings, while one quarter had earnings below 32 per cent. of the average. The rebates in the Bill do not provide disabled people with appropriate protection from the consequences of paying the personal community charge.
The compensation for the 20 per cent. contribution, which apparently is built into income support for those who depend on income support, can be argued to be far from adequate for disabled people. It does not take into account the additional costs of living that disabled people have to face. They will undoubtedly suffer as a result, even at the 20 per cent. level, particularly in areas in which the poll tax will be at higher levels. Many inner city areas, with which I am not so conversant from a personal or a constituency point of view, that provide most services for disabled people—some of the boroughs that do most for disabled people—happen also to have a high level of rates and may have a high poll tax. There are instances of disabled people who have moved into such areas because they know that services are available there that are not available in areas which are not willing to raise money to provide services.
The poll tax will also have damaging consequences for the benefits that some disabled people are getting from the present domestic rate concessions. Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1968, disabled people can receive rebates on housing that has been adapted to their needs. During the passage of the Scottish legislation in another place, Lord Glenarthur for the Government recognised that fact, when he stated:
We therefore propose that additional help which could extend up to 100 per cent. of the community charge should be available for a clearly defined group of severely disabled people.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 1987: Vol. 486, c.1665.]
Up to 100 per cent., he said. That commitment appears to have been ignored in the way in which rebates are being calculated.
Under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act, the cost of rebates was £61 million, benefiting 102,000 disabled people in 1985. Many of them were on low incomes, but not necessarily on income support. As we know, many disabled people want to be in jobs, but they are in jobs that, necessarily, are low paid.
Another unacceptable part of the Bill is the way in which mentally handicapped people are being stigmatised and defined. By inserting our amendments, there would be a way around that, because the same benefits could be defined without categorising mentally disabled people as a group on their own who need to be certified. Despite the changes that have been discussed, the process of exemption remains certification by another name. There is certainly a dilemma facing the parents of mentally handicapped people who are considering applying for exemption. They risk further labelling of their severely mentally handicapped son or daughter or paying tax themselves out of what are often scarce resources. To that extent, the measure is offensive to people with a mental handicap and to their parents who deal with them.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West referred to the effect on community care. There is a real danger that the pressure of the system will be towards keeping people in


institutional care. The Government's own social security advisory committee noted that if claimants are expected to pay 20 per cent. of their rates, the result would be
increased hardship, increased debt or both.
The poor levels of rebate under the present proposals will ensure precisely that for disabled people. The prospects for community care will look bleak as disabled people are presented with yet another financial hurdle to overcome if they are to live in the community. Disabled people do not seek or want special treatment under the poll tax legislation because of their disability. What they do need is a system that takes account of their ability to pay and the problems that they face. That is the intention of the amendment. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has applied itself to that matter. In the context of the amendments, it states:
We envisage that disabled people will face major problems should the Government's proposals pass through Parliament unamended. First of all, the proposals for the operation of the community charge will act as a direct disincentive to the community care policies we are all so keen to see extended. With exemption from the community charge for residents of residential care homes, and the failure to compensate adequately disabled people living at home, there will in the first instance be a simple financial disincentive for disabled and elderly people to continue to live in or move hack into the community.
That is the background of my amendment. I realise that, if the Government's amendment is passed and clause 23 is deleted, it may not be possible for me to press the House to a Division on amendment No. 229 as I would otherwise wish to do. Although amendment No. 230 brings in a general point, it is still geared to clause 23. Therefore, it may be in the interests of the House to look for an amendment—possibly Labour's amendment (a)—that broadens the argument which applies to other groups but which could be applicable to the disabled people to whom I have referred. Whichever way, the Government are duty bound to say how they will give disabled people a better deal.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) rightly said that the thrust of Government policy for care in the community is not assisted by the introduction of the community charge, which penalises members of families who are removed from hospitals or nursing homes and taken home.
Our deliberations in Committee were greatly assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). Tonight's debate is the poorer for his absence, and I suspect that the Government's majority will be one greater because he is not here. However, he has left us with new clause 8.
It is generally accepted that it is a bad idea to tax the poor. We are now agreed that we are talking about a tax, and I was slightly surprised by the Government's initial proposals, whereby those on benefit would have to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, but made no provision for increasing their benefit to enable them to pay that amount. However, that matter was put right about a year ago.
It is further agreed that the system of obliging the poor to pay makes no contribution to the funding of local government. Those who are on benefit can get 80 per cent. rebated at source and 20 per cent. back through their

supplementary benefit. At the end of the day, a vast sum of money will have changed hands with no net contribution to the funding of local government.
The poll tax is being introduced for one reason only—accountability. It is important to discover whether accountability is achieved by rebates. We have a foretaste of what is likely to happen because this year, for the first time, those who receive benefit have had to pay 20 per cent. of their rates. I shall give an example from my constituency of a man and wife who receive benefit and are out of work. This year, for the first time, they must pay 20 per cent. of their rates and their benefit has been uprated by 20 per cent. of the average poll tax.
However, other things have happened at the same time. Rents in the London borough of Ealing have increased and service charges and underlying rates of benefit have changed. At the end of the day, that man and wife may be £1 or £2 better off, but there is no way in which they discover whether they are in or out of pocket because rates in Ealing are at a specific level. The sums are not disaggregated, so if they are out of pocket they do not know whether to blame the Government or their rent and rates. Already, one is seeing people at one's advice bureau who, as a result of the social security changes, are somewhat perplexed. They are unable to decide whether the London borough of Ealing or anyone else is responsible for what has happened.
At present, that man's wife receives no rate demand. To that extent, she is left out of the equation. He applies for a rebate and pays 20 per cent. of his rates. The purpose of the poll tax is to include his wife. What will happen when the poll tax comes into force? The wife will have to register and will receive a bill. As she will have no income, she will apply for an 80 per cent. rebate, which will be rebated at source. What about the remaining 20 per cent.? She will not receive that sum because it will be added to her husband's benefit. Thus, she is brought into the equation and becomes accountable, but will not have a penny to pay.
The Government say that the husband will go to the post office, draw benefit, find the 20 per cent. of the national average poll tax—which is not his, but his wife's—and give it to his wife, who will then see whether the national average is more or less in the London borough of Ealing. If it is more, she will be out of pocket, and I do not know how she will pay rates. If it is less, she will pocket 4p or 5p a week. She will then go to the post office and pay her bill.
We all know that that scenario is absurd. The husband will pay the bill for both of them out of the joint benefit that he will have received. The notion that his wife will be made more accountable and that the new system will rekindle a long-lost interest in municipal affairs is rubbish. Much bureaucracy will be involved, and those two people will say, "Who on earth invented this new system?". The idea that they may take their anger out on the London borough of Ealing, if they work out that their rates are above average, is misguided. I think that their attention will focus on whoever devised the new scheme.
We have gone beyond the stage at which it would be possible to exempt them from the charade of being marched into the system, being given money, and marched out again. However, we can insulate against any financial loss, which is why, if there is to be a Division, I am minded to vote for amendment (a). Although it would not offer total protection, which would be logical, it would insulate


them from the financial consequences of this measure. We are talking about people on low incomes, and I see no reason why we should make their incomes any lower.

Mr. Terry Davis: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that people tend rightly to focus their discontent on the Government.
The two terms that will live and be repeated whenever people discuss the poll tax are, first, that used by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who described the poll tax as the "Tory tax", and, secondly, the adjective used by the Secretary of State, who described the rebate scheme as "generous". Those terms will be repeated constantly by Opposition Members and their supporters.
My hon. Friends have already drawn attention to the problems of disabled people. I shall not say anything further about those problems other than to say that I agree entirely with my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends will recognise that many less well-off people deserve to be considered for more generous rebates. I use the phrase "less well-off" because it was used in the famous correspondence that was leaked this week.
The Government tend to assume that people who are less well-off, whether they be disabled or not, have been adequately helped by the improvement in income support of 20 per cent. of the average poll tax rate. The Government forget that many less well-off people do not receive income support from other sources—whether it be as a result of their thrift from wages or private pensions; the pension is deferred remuneration and deferred wages—and because their income is pence above the threshold at which one stops receiving income support, they have not had an increase of 20 per cent. of the average poll tax rate. Those people will particularly suffer, and in the past many of them have voted for the Conservative party. They will describe the Secretary of State's proposals as the Tory tax and will express through the ballot box their resentment of his description of the rebate scheme as generous.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for the opportunity to make one or two remarks. I was prompted to comment during the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). His speech was economically illiterate and politically disingenuous. He is an intelligent man, and I think that he was doing that deliberately. His speech was a pot pourri of traditional Labour party taxonomics—tax the rich, soak the rich and away with enterprise and wealth creation. What he said was quite irrelevant to the debate and wasted our time.
The hon. Member for Copeland repeatedly drew examples out of the air. It is easy to make comparisons between the chairman of a company earning a large salary and somebody who is just above the rebate line and say, "They are paying the same poll tax." The hon. Gentleman gave example after example, ignoring the fact that the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers will be paying 10 times more than the bottom 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that when this reform is passed three quarters of the cost of local government will be accounted for by the business rate and the general taxpayer, which is based on ability to pay.
The Labour party continually tries to divert the debate along the line that we shall all be paying the same for local

services. By so doing, it is deluding the electorate. The hon. Gentleman did not apologise on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who tried to convince the House that some people on low incomes, even after rebates, will be paying 10 per cent. or more of their income. My right hon. Friend said that they could be paying as little as 7·5 per cent.
Whatever system of local taxation we have, whether it is the local income tax favoured by the Liberal party or the system favoured by the Labour party—a local income tax coupled with a property tax—there is bound to be a high marginal rate of income tax at the bottom and it is bound to create some poverty or earnings trap. They know that there is no way out of that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Leigh: No. I have very little time as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the debate at 8.40 pm.
All systems suffer from that. The hon. Member for Copeland failed to present any system of his own to the House. He knows that any system would result in a relatively high level of taxation on the lower paid. I want my right hon. Friend to know that we on this side of the House think that the rebates that he has brought forward are quite generous enough. We do not feel that he needs to go any further. He has got the equation about right.

Mr. Ridley: It is not surprising that Monday's debate spilled over into rebates and that the debate tonight on rebates has spilled back into the principle. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) was saying, as many other speakers have tried to get back to the principle that was established in the vote on Monday night. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's inability to be called on that occasion, and I am delighted that he was called today, but I do not think that he will expect me to repeat the arguments of Monday.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was also speaking on the wrong day, because the incentive to go into residential care or stay at home was debated yesterday and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government gave a convincing and comprehensive answer, which the hon. Friend clearly did not hear. I recommend him to read Hansard, and I shall not bore the House by repeating those arguments this evening.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ridley: No. I have very little time as I have cut my time short so that every hon. Member could get in.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) repeated the arguments that were made in Committee about rating relief for the disabled. He knows perfectly well that under the present rating system disabled people who had to have extensions to their houses which could have led to a higher rates bill were excused that increase. Of course that will not arise. Whatever the facilities in someone's house, he has to pay the community charge, not on the basis of his housing, but on the basis of his status as an individual. Therefore, it is inappropriate to reintroduce that relief, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) kept asking for categorical assurances and guarantees, as if the world would never change and no contingencies would be applied. I can tell him, particularly in relation to the


maintenance of benefits in real terms, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a statutory obligation to review benefits each year. Decisions are made taking account of all the circumstances at the time. The hon. Gentleman will find that each year the House has the opportunity to debate the uprating of social security benefits. In the same way, community charge rebates will become a benefit and will be within the purview of those arrangements and will be assessed, put to the House, debated and voted upon every year.
The hon. Member for Truro, supported by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), returned to the question of a 100 per cent. benefit, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). He argued again, as those three hon. Members did in Committee, to substitute for the 20 per cent. uprating plus the 80 per cent. rebate arrangements a 100 per cent. rebate. However, as has been pointed out, a 100 per cent. rebate would be nonsense. It would be a pointless process to make someone liable and then give him a 100 per cent. rebate. Therefore, that in itself cannot be the answer.
As has rightly been pointed out, the reason why it is better that everyone should contribute at least 20 per cent. is that everybody would have an interest in the conduct of their local authority and would be able to play a part in forming the decisions of that local authority through their votes. That is the basis of the whole scheme. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton does not like it, but it would be absurd at this stage to return to the point of principle that has been established that everybody will play a part. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept amendment (a).
8.45 pm
The hon. Member for Truro also spoke to amendment (b) and referred to the different treatment between single people under 25 and those over 25. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the debate in Committee, when the point was firmly made that this is a part of the social security reforms to which the House assented in what is now the Social Security Act.
The main reason why there is a distinction between the under-25s and the over-25s is that most of those under 25 live at home and do not have household expenses, while the majority of those over 25 are householders and therefore have household expenses. That is not an entirely watertight distinction, but it recognises the special expenses that older single people have when they become householders.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ridley: I shall not give way, as I have little time and many points to answer.
That means that the structure of the community charge benefit is the same for individuals under and over 25. For net income up to income support level they will receive the 80 per cent. reduction. As income rises above that level, benefit tapers off by 15p for each extra £1 of income. The only difference is that the income support levels themselves are different for individuals above and below 25. As I have already explained, that merely reflects the fact that 80 per cent. of those under 25 are not householders and therefore face lower household expenses than do the majority of those over 25. That view commended itself to the House when it approved the income support level regulations.
The hon. Member for Copeland did not receive the letter that I placed on the board at 3 pm, and I apologise to him if the communications between us did not work with their usual immaculate regularity, but I gave him the details of the rebate. I maintain my view that it is a generous rebate.
The hon. Gentleman can attack the rebate only by returning to the argument about ability to pay and by comparing the rebated contributions of various groups with the contributions of people who are very much better off. Of course, by such comparisons the differences will be very marked as they are on gross income and net income and any other way in which we compare the fortunes of the rich and the poor. There will be large differences, but that is not the point. The point of my assertion that the rebate is generous is that the points at which people start to get on to the rebate taper, and that points where they lose rebate altogether are fairly high figures of net income, arid even higher figures of gross income, which compare very favourably with anything that has gone before, arid certainly anything that the Labour party ever achieved when it was arranging such matters.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ridley: No.
Finally, I want to deal with the question of the leaked letter, which was referred to by two hon. Members. The word "disgusting" was used in that context. I must confess that I think it is disgusting to pick up stolen goods arid then to shred the evidence. It will give great aid arid comfort to criminals to know that the Opposition are prepared to dispose of the evidence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland does not seem to understand how the system works. The rebates are paid for by the community charge payers, he said, but that cannot be true, because the rebates before I improved them, and the rebates as we now have them, are all part of one thing. The Government's contribution to local authorities covers both the grant to local authorities and the cost of the rebates. If a higher rebate cost is fixed, it will automatically result in higher community charges for a given, limited, fixed grant.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to tell the House, because the point was not apparently taken, that that flows through into the level of benefits, but that it is corrected, if it is wished to correct it, at the time that the level of grant is fixed. If the total level of grant is increased, there will be no impact on the community charge, but if it is increased it will have an impact on the community charge.
The correspondence made it clear that I believed. long before my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) put down his amendment, and long before Monday's debate, that the taper was a little harsh and not as generous as I should have liked it to be. It is now clear that I thought that a long time ago. If my colleagues had agreed that we should slacken the taper on the community charge rebate, it would have made no sense whatsoever to increase the housing benefit taper in the same year. Naturally, we decided not to do so. It is all very simple, if only the Opposition would listen to what I am saying.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's return to the Dispatch Box was a bit like the return of Crazy Horse. His speech made a bad situation even worse. He described undiscovered and unnamed civil servants as criminals. That can hardly improve his relationship with them.
I accept the Secretary of State's apology about the delay in receipt of his letter, but it is a little disconcerting to receive letters that we are not supposed to have more quickly than the ones that we are supposed to have.
As for the bucolic and intemperate intervention of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), if anyone was here on the wrong day it was he, because he did not deal with rebates. Apart from being here on the wrong day, he also appears not to be on the same wavelength as the Secretary of State. I remind him of what the Secretary of State said about the matter in Committee on 23 February. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was an assiduous attender in Committee, I am sure that he heard what the Secretary of State said, which was:
With a flat rate charge it must be true that the burden will fall more heavily on those with low incomes than on those with high incomes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1988; c. 936.]
That is what I said, too. That is why we are opposed to the principle of a flat rate community charge. We believe that the rebates are inadequate. That is why we have tabled amendment (a).
It is Orwellian that something that in Committee was called a rebate has suddenly and miraculously been renamed a benefit. The Secretary of State referred to benefits as though people were being given something. What they are being given, in his terms, is a slightly less onerous Bill. They are not being given anything. To describe it as a benefit is almost as bad as the Secretary of State's use of the word "generous" in this context, a word which will return to haunt the Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends again and again.
I hope that it can be agreed that Government amendment No. 120 should be taken on the nod and that the amendments from then onwards to new clause 5 should not be moved. We agree that the Government's new clause 16 should be taken on the nod. Amendment (a) should be written into the Bill, because it would provide for the paying of rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the poll tax.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

DEFAULT POWERS AS TO REGISTERS

Amendment made: No. 193, in page 15, line 18, leave out 'expires' and insert 'ends'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 26

DEFAULT POWERS AS TO RESOURCES

Amendment made: No. 194, in page 16, line 2, leave out `expires' and insert 'ends'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 28

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 16, line 34, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ridley.]

New clause 16

SOCIAL SECURITY

'Schedule (Social security) below (which amends the Social Security Act 1986 so as to make provision for benefits in respect of community charges in England and Wales and Scotland) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed as an amendment to the proposed clause, at beginning insert—
'After making a report to Parliament on how community charge affects families and those on low incomes, the Secretary of State shall produce a scheme for rebates up to 100 per cent. and'.—[Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 330.

Division No. 268]
[8.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Battle, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beckett, Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Bell, Stuart
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Flynn, Paul


Blair, Tony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gould, Bryan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clay, Bob
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clelland, David
Haynes, Frank


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heffer, Eric S.


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Coleman, Donald
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Holland, Stuart


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kennedy, Charles
Reid, Dr John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Richardson, Jo


Kirkwood, Archy
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Livsey, Richard
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McTaggart, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Strang, Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie. Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Turner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wall, Pat


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliott
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Brien, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Radice, Giles





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John (Winchester)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)





Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochiord)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irving, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine:


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, James


Dunn, Bob
King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Eggar, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Favell, Tony
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Franks, Cecil
Lord, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


French, Douglas
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maclean, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Major, Rt Hon John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mellor, David






Miller, Hal
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speed, Keith


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Speller, Tony


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Stern, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stevens, Lewis


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Paice, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thorne, Neil


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Michael
Trippier, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rattan, Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Redwood, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Renton, Tim
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walters, Dennis


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watts, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Whitney, Ray


Ryder, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville,' Hon Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilshire, David


Scott, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Woodcock, Mike


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring to a decision the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 32

DUTY TO SET SUBSTITUTED AMOUNTS

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 12, at end insert 'and'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following Government amendments: Nos. 23, 33, 34, 24 to 32, 61, 63 to 65 and 62.

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of this group of amendments is to change the financing of passenger transport authority expenditure from precepting on the collection fund to billing the metropolitan districts. The change is designed to increase accountability. I am sure that hon. Members will have issues to raise and questions to ask to which they would like to have replies on the record. As there is only a short time available for debate, it may be for the convenience of the House that I hear the points that hon. Members want to make and reply fully to them.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is deplorable that this group of amendments should suddenly appear on the Notice Paper as part of this appalling Bill. The Minister's speech was entirely in keeping with the Government's view of local democracy and the view of the Department of Transport towards national transport policy matters. When I saw that the Minister was to move the amendment, I thought that we would get the usual carton of powdered valium sprinkled over us. That is something for which the hon. Gentleman is fairly well known. It seems that even the valium is in short supply when he treats the House with such contempt.
There is no excuse for these amendments appearing during our debates on Report. If any function and service has been overly messed about—I put it at its kindest—since the Government were first elected, it is public transport. As recently as March 1986, as a consequence of the Transport Act 1985, metropolitan county councils were abolished. The deregulation of bus passenger transport in all areas, with the exception of London, consequently took place. New passenger transport authorities .were formed from within the metropolitan districts and the passenger transport executives were obliged to part company with their bus undertakings. Moreover, since 1986 the passenger transport authority has become a precepting authority on the districts. Until the Bill is enacted, it will have a separate needs assessment for grant purposes.
This massive reorganisation of public transport was in part justified by the Government by removing public transport from what they considered to be remote and out-of-control metropolitan counties and giving it to locally elected districts. My hon. Friends who have sat through our consideration of the Bill will be aware of the quality and calibre of the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is an old political saying about the Peter principle and rising to the level of one's incompetence. The Nicholas principle takes people far beyond that level until members of their own party actually notice.
In 1984 the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the then Secretary of State for Transport, spoke about the precepting of new passenger transport authorities. He said:
In the metropolitan counties we accept the need to provide a continuing mechanism for decisions on a countywide basis—for instance, on the provision of subsidy for socially necessary but unprofitable services. That is why we shall provide for joint passenger authorities with members appointed by the constituent districts. That reverts to the previous arrangements which worked perfectly satisfactorily."—[Official Report, 7 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 202.]
He was referring to the Local Government Act 1972, which was another attempt at legalised ballot-rigging by the Conservative party. The passenger transport authorities created under that Act were regarded as being eminently satisfactory in 1984, yet we are told that for reasons of accountability they are unsatisfactory in 1988.
9.15 pm
The consultative paper that accompanies this shabby piece of legislation states:
The principal objective of the new finance regime is to promote accountability to the electorate.
The new Conservative doctrine on accountability is to stop locally elected councillors from taking decisions. If anything illustrates the lack of confidence, despite the public relations puffs, emanating from Conservative Central Office about the result of the local elections on 5 May, it is a piece of legislation such as this. Far from being confident of taking control of many of the constituent bodies that make up passenger transport authorities, the Government, through this piece of legislation, are reduced, as usual, to removing accountability from locally elected councillors and taking it upon themselves.
How is this shabby piece of legislation to work? We all know the philosophy behind it. Because nobody took advantage of the Transport Act 1985 as it related to passenger transport authorities, they are being encouraged to do so under this piece of legislation.
When one looks at bus services across the former metropolitan county areas, one is struck by the number of cross-district boundaries through which those services pass. For example, in Greater Manchester no less than 65 per cent. of bus services cross a district boundary. In the Conservative party's attempt to justify this piece of legislation, it is a pity that passenger journeys do not match the dreams—if that is the right term—of civil servants who thought up the boundaries in the first place. As I have said, in Manchester 65 per cent. of journeys do not match up to that dream. In Merseyside, south Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear and the west midlands about 40 per cent. do not match up and in west Yorkshire 30 per cent. do not match that view.
When local authorities are being encouraged to secede, as they are, do they secede completely or can they do so partly? For example, can they opt out of the concessionary fare scheme that covered the former county council areas while remaining in the scheme for socially necessary bus services? Instead of listening to the Whip who is telling him how long he has to speak, will the Minister write these questions down? If we do not have any other opportunity to hear the reply, we shall see that the same questions are asked in another place where we hope a bit more time will he allowed. Will part secession be allowed under the proposals?
I know that the consultative document talked about the need for economic efficiency. I believe that that was the

phrase used. If we are to remain with that phrase, how is economic efficiency to be promoted if all the different aspects of administration at passenger transport authority level are to be spread throughout the districts and if those districts that secede are to be responsible for such things as socially necessary bus services? On a matter of concessionary fares, will part opting-out be allowed?
From the consultative document one would have thought that only railway services were involved. Obviously they are important. We must ask what will happen in the future to such splendid passenger transport initiatives as the Tyne and Wear Metro, Merseyrail on Merseyside and the light rail transit proposals for the Greater Manchester area and the west midlands. Will authorities like Solihull be encouraged to reduce the amount payable to the former precepting authority because the initial proposal for the metro system in the west midlands does not include Solihull? Is not that likely to be the outcome of the encouragement which is being given to metropolitan districts on secession?
If a new scheme does not pass through a local authority area, that authority will be encouraged to ask why its ratepayers should be responsible for part of the scheme. That doctrine does not appeal in London where authorities south of the river are still expected to pay towards London Underground, most of which is north of the river. That doctrine does not apply in the last bastion of rural Toryism, the shire counties, where the niggardly amounts of support given to public transport are paid on a shire county rather than on a district council basis. Why do the Government single out these authorities? The explanation is simple. All of them are guilty in the eyes of the Government of being controlled by members of the Labour party. That is what the legislation is about and that is why this tacky amendment has been moved.
The Minister, in his second major contribution to the debate, shakes his head. He talked about accountability. If we are to be held accountable for public transport, why do the Government not make the same proposals for the police and the fire service? They do not because such a proposition would be laughed out of court. Even some of the tame and neutered tabby cats who sit behind the Minister, hoping for office, would be likely to object. I had better be careful because the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside the Minister. However, even some Tory Back Benchers would think that it was going too far to vote for so-called accountability for the police and the fire service.
Because of the deplorably short time which has been allowed for this debate, I shall have to conclude by putting some questions to the Minister. How will the proposal improve the accountability of passenger transport authorities to the local electorate? We would appreciate a deep insight into Government thinking on that philosophy. How will the billing of district councils improve their accountability to the local electorate? What is the difference between billing and precepting? Perhaps most important, what financial resources will district councils have to pay the passenger transport authorities' bill? Will the Minister, if he ever manages to clamber to his feet again, give an assurance that the resources available to district councils will amount to as much as is given to passenger transport authorities currently?
Why do the Government claim that fears that district councils will secede are exaggerated when, in the consultative document, they encouraged district councils


to do so? What effect do the Government expect secession to have on value for money in support for public transport, given the likely duplication of resources to which I have already referred? Do the Government understand what the effects will be on passengers, operators and the quality of service in metropolitan areas if they alone are no longer able to support public transport on a county basis?
The proposed legislation is deplorable. We shall encourage as much disruption as possible in another place. I say that conscious of the fact that those other tame tabbies who are dining at the moment but who normally sit in the Press Gallery will once again accuse the Labour party of fomenting discontent nationwide. The Government detest public transport. They detest local accountability even more. For those two valid reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the amendment.

Mr. Gary Waller: I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister some questions that are perhaps more serious than those raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The Government's objective, which is to bring about greater accountability in passenger transport provision, as in numerous other local government services, is admirable. The question is solely whether the new financial regime for the passenger transport authorities will bring about greater accountability. The theory is that, because members of the PTAs are appointed by the districts and are not directly elected, they are not accountable directly to the electorate. I accept that the existing system lacks that element of full accountability.
There is quite a strong argument in favour of direct election of the members of PTAs. The question is whether a financial regime incorporating levies instead of precepts would provide greater accountability. There is possibly a question mark hanging over the matter. It seems to be a fairly finely balanced judgment. The trouble is that even if districts believe that they are paying too much they have no sanction available, other than the threat of secession from the PTA if the Secretary of State agrees. It is either one thing or the other. There is no half measure. Secession from the PTAs should be contemplated with the greatest caution. I do not know of any metropolitan district that has considered having recourse to section 42 of the Local Government Act 1985 in respect of any service administered by a joint board.
Short of seeking to secede, the district representatives, it may be claimed, will apply greater pressure if the districts are billed. I believe that in reality they would want to apply exactly the same pressure if they favoured better value for money, even if the community charge payers were precepted. To put it another way, would a Conservative council put across a muted message because the ratepayers or community charge payers were precepted?
Dispensing with precepts has certain accountability disadvantages. A major point in favour of the community charge is that it enables the individual responsible for paying it to judge the performance of his or her local authority, with no ifs or buts. The fact that, following the enactment of this legislation, the charge will incorporate an element covering the PTA levy will blur the edges of

accountability. It could enable high-spending authorities to claim that the responsibility for increases is not theirs but someone else's. This would confuse the elector and perhaps damage the pure accountability of the community charge system.
The elector will not see on his or her community charge demand a separately itemised figure for local transport services. Even now, I believe that many ratepayers welcome the fact that since the creation of the joint boards they have been able to assess the amount that they are paying for these jointly funded services. This measure of accountability, which was so recently granted for transport, is apparently now being snatched away again.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some questions about secession and to ask for some reassurances for those who live in the metropolitan districts. A large number of passenger journeys cross district boundaries, and commuting journeys in particular fall into that category. Districts do not necessarily coincide with commuting patterns. To give an example from my constituency, the town of Ilkley is in the Leeds travel-to-work area, even though it is in the Bradford metropolitan district. Many people travel each day from Keighley in the Bradford district to work in Leeds.
The problem arises mainly with train services, which generally cross district boundaries, but also with bus routes to a considerable extent. If a district such as Bradford or Leeds decided that secession was in the interests of its residents, what reassurance can my hon. Friend provide that the district would not be able to secede without proper provision being made for those who do not pay a community charge in the district, but nevertheless depend on transport routes which extend into that district?
In summary, I wish to ask my hon. Friend two questions. First, cannot the possibility of secession, which is meant to encourage passenger transport authorities to provide better value for money—that is a worthy objective—be allowed for with fewer disadvantages under a precept regime than under a levy system? Secondly, what reassurance can he give my constituents who fear that the proposals might be a threat to the cross-boundary services on which they depend?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall be brief, in my view far too brief for the needs of the subject. The fact that it is being dealt with in 45 minutes is not just a result of the guillotine motion. The matter came on the scene far too recently for proper discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, whatever else happens tonight, the matter will have to be opened up in another place. The classic reason for the existence of another place is to give a chance for a reappraisal, in this case the first real appraisal of a problem that affects the areas of the disbanded metropolitan counties.
A piece of correspondence was given to me and to other hon. Members when a deputation from the West Yorkshire PTA came to see us. I noticed then that the first letter from the Department of Transport was dated 22 January and that comments had to be received by 15 February. Three weeks is not a sufficiently long period for proper consideration.
The first point that I want to make is perhaps not too important to those of us who represent the city of Leeds,


which is probably the most powerful and richest part of West Yorkshire. The cost of the PTA will now be based on the size of the adult population. That may be fine for Leeds, but it may not be excellent for Calderdale and those areas on the sides of the Pennines.
I noticed, incidentally, that the note that came to the PTAs from the Department of Transport—I read it as a justification—stated:
It is proposed to abolish the power of the PTAs to set a local tax rate—a community charge".
The Department of Transport appears to be against a community charge.
I promised to be brief so that my hon. Friends could also contribute to the debate, but I wish to raise two points in respect of the same piece of paper mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). We all asked for that to be made available to us. We asked that it should be made available to the Minister for Public Transport. I telephoned and asked that that should be done and, therefore, we were working under the assumption that the questions would be dealt with by the Minister when he opened the debate so that, when we contributed, we could take the matter a step further. Apparently, that will have to be done in the other place.
I wish to put in practical terms question No. 6 asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East in respect of West Yorkshire. We were told that the services in West Yorkshire that would suffer, if they did not disappear altogether, would be countywide tickets, such as metrocards and saver strips, which are valid with all bus operators and on rail services. What about the uniform concessionary fares scheme? Will we have a separate concessionary fares scheme in all five districts? The public information services cover the whole of West Yorkshire. The timetable changes still occur every two or three days. They have to be published quickly or in advance to cover all operators under the new legislation.
What about support for the local rail network, the patronage of which has increased by 50 per cent. in the past four years? The cross-boundary services in West Yorkshire account for 80 per cent. of the services. If West Yorkshire is to be split up, if there is to be secession or if the scheme will not work as well as previously, 80 per cent. of West Yorkshire's bus services will require some public financial support. One third cross one district boundary or more.
What about the management of the infrastructure—bus stations, shelters and stops—and support for innovation? In Leeds we are talking about trolley bus services and light railways, and that would be paid for by the people of Calderdale. I first went to Leeds 25 years ago when it was an old county borough and we are proud of having our bus services and so on. But we are not going back to that; we are going forward to a disjointed service between the five parts of the county.
In the past week I have listened carefully to all the talk about the community charge. The possibility of community charge capping was put to us. I do not want to take up time and go into that question, but the West Yorkshire PTA is greatly worried that there would be community rate capping there. If we in Leeds implemented a light rail scheme which had to be paid for on the other side of what used to be the county, Calderdale could find itself community charge capped, despite a perfectly proper

decision by the PTA to undertake major expenditure elsewhere. I shall not develop the point because I imagine that the Minister is well aware of it.
Those two points out of the six put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East worry us in West Yorkshire. I do not believe that here in London where people are used to the bigger area of the old London county council and the Greater London council the Government appreciate the position in the disbanded metropolitan counties. We require answers to those questions tonight. We shall lose the vote. This is not the exciting stuff of two days ago, but the matter will be raised again in another place. There is great anxiety in West Yorkshire and it has been my aim to bring that again to the Minister's notice.

Mr. David Clelland: I, too, shall be brief because of the disgraceful shortage of time to discuss this important issue.
The Government's case appears to be based on the argument that PTAs are not accountable. Yet only a couple of years ago the Government abolished democratically elected councils which were directly accountable to the people who elected them and were responsible for running transport. We know that the police, fire and civil defence authorities will retain precepting powers although they are in exactly the same position as PTAs.
The argument is not only grossly hypocritical, but is incorrect, because PTAs are accountable. Indeed, they have a statutory duty under the Transport Act 1985 to consult local councils, local operators and other interests and individuals when formulating policies for public transport systems. They have a statutory duty to consult the business community, and during such consultations Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce and major privately owned bus companies have shown that they share the PTA's concern and have offered their support and efforts to change the Government's attitude. The authority must also work in close co-operation with local councils, which provide PTA members. Clearly, Tyne and Wear PTA lives up to the spirit as well as the letter of the law and has welcomed consultation and discussion.
It is equally clear that if the Government are promoting the disintegration of countywide integrated transport, the Department of Transport is openly canvassing secession and the countywide provision of transport is again under threat. We know that if canvassing does not work, pressure will be applied to the district councils to secede.
Tyne and Wear is the smallest conurbation in England, and the need for the countywide co-ordination of transport services is widely recognised. Those services have made a great contribution to the area's economic regeneration. The proposal before the House poses a threat to the Metro system on Tyne and Wear, which is the envy of the world, and to the future expansion and realistic fares structure which that system encompasses. Concessionery travel and special needs transport will also be under threat if secession goes ahead, because of the loss of economies of scale. Deregulation has also had its effect on passenger confidence in the public transport system, which has been a significant casualty.
If the Government want to destroy integration in Tyne and Wear, as would appear to be the case, and to destroy the Metro system, why do they not just send up a squad of SAS men to put a bomb under it? That would be just as effective as the proposal before the House.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be brief because the case for the six metropolitan transport authorities has been highlighted by my hon. Friends. We must also put on the record the objections of the South Yorkshire transport authority, because it prided itself on the service that was provided when the South Yorkshire county council was in being. It was what people wanted, and that was consistently reflected in their votes.
Deregulation was then introduced, and various Acts dispensed with South Yorkshire county council. The Government set up the residuary bodies with the intention that those bodies and the joint authorities should be accountable. The Minister of State said at the time:
We are faced with an authority being set up to provide a service which, inevitably, is wider than any individual district council. That, of course, is the logic and the rationale behind joint boards for police, fire and transport, so that there can be a co-ordination of policy and an agreement to run what is in essence a public service."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 12 February 1985, c. 1337.]
The Minister also said:
We accepted from the beginning the need to co-ordinate certain aspects of public transport, especially support for rail, decisions about subsidy or unprofitable services in different areas, and concessionary fares. None of that is under threat.
That was said in 1985. Now, in 1988, it is all under threat.
We have a right, on behalf of our constituents, to ask why it is wrong now when it was right in 1985. What has happened to make the Government change their mind? We think we know, but we would like the Minister to tell us. We think that it is in the Government's mind to destroy public transport and public transport authorities.
What will happen when the levy is introduced, and the district authority says, "Sorry, mate, but we want to spend the money on education or social services, not on transport"? What will happen to the existing infrastructure? The light railway in Sheffield has been mentioned. What is to happen to all the bus stations and the combination of train and bus stations in the area? In south Yorkshire, 40 per cent. of the transport services cross other boundaries, as do many of the railways.
We need time to get over the legislation that has already been introduced, and we need this provision like we need a hole in the head. We are trying to get over the destruction that has been caused by previous policies, and they should not be compounded now. We want to leave matters as they are and wait to see whether the Government were right in the views that they earlier expressed.
Those are some of the matters that concern us, but to allow others to speak I shall stop now and hope that we will return to these matters on another day.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Can the Minister give an assurance that Calderdale will not be squeezed out of the new area? We are desperate because, either way, we shall lose. I will not go over our arguments but will the Minister give a guarantee that Calderdale will be given some form of protection?

Mr. David Mitchell: I thought that a number of other hon. Members would rise to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am happy to have the opportunity to reply to the points that have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) complained about the short period for consultation. We issued the discussion paper on 22 January, and asked for responses by 15 February.

However, we have continued to receive responses subsequent to that date. We took full account of those responses, including a meeting that I had with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 2 March. Moreover, as late as 28 March I met Manchester Members of Parliament to hear their views. While I entirely understand why the right hon. Gentleman raised that point, I feel that that will reassure him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and others asked a series of questions about secession. I noticed in particular that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) claimed that the Department of Transport was actively canvassing secession. That is entirely untrue. Indeed, let me go further and tell the House that when the Transport Act 1985 was going through the House we were told that it would lead to a massive amount of secession. That has not happened: not a single metropolitan district has seceded. The reality has not borne out the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman and many others during our debates in 1985.

Mr. Clelland: Is it not a fact that it is because that situation has not arisen that this measure has been brought before the House tonight? That is what I mean by openly canvassing secession.

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the purpose of the measure. In a moment, I shall give the reasons that lie behind it.
The point that I am trying to make is that we were assured previously of wild rumours of a massive degree of secession, and it has not materialised. One district came to us and made inquiries about the conditions that would be attached to secession, but did not return with further proposals. I have no reason to believe that the measure will lead to secession by districts. I do not anticipate such a development, and I can give any hon. Members who are genuinely worried on that score an assurance that if any authority asks for secession my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look very carefully at the proposals, and set conditions that will have to be met. On that ground, hon. Members can be reassured that secession will not result.

Mr. Rees: What sort of conditions is the Minister likely to lay down? I do not quite follow him.

Mr. Mitchell: For example, if the passenger transport authority is sustaining a rail network, the condition might well be attached that any district that sought to secede would still have to contribute towards that network. We are seeking to ensure fairness if secession were ever to take place.
Let me repeat, however, that the amendment is not designed to bring about secession. I should like to explain what it is designed to do, and why it has been introduced.

Mr. Snape: Before the Minister does that, may I ask him a question arising from the sentence that he has just uttered? If a district council opted for part secession, continuing to contribute towards the railway network but not towards certain aspects of the bus network, how would the affairs of the passenger transport authority be debated and decided upon? Would that part-seceding district council be allowed to speak and vote on matters on which it had partly seceded?

Mr. Mitchell: If a metropolitan district secedes, it loses its representation and its commitment to being involved in or contributing to the expense of the PTA.

Mr. Favell: This may be slightly outside my hon. Friend's remit, but can he deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape)'? Why are police and firemen not included under the same provisions? Many Conservative Members who were involved with the old metropolitan counties believe that there should be similar provisions for them. There is no earthly reason why there should be a countywide fire, and possibly police service in Greater Manchester.

Mr. Mitchell: There are considerable differences between the police and fire services and PTAs. My hon. Friend should be aware that the Home Secretary already controls 51 per cent. of the finance of the police, and there are inspectorates for the police and fire services to ensure efficiency and standards of service. So they are very different. This case is left very much to the PTA. In the case of the fire and police service, standards are set, so there is not the same degree of discretion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why the change?

Mr. Mitchell: I am coming to that. I want first to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, who asked whether accountability could not be increased by directly elected PTAs. As the expenditure of the PTAs amounts to only about 6 per cent. of the expenditure of the districts it would not be realistic or practicable to have an election merely to control such a small expenditure.

Mr. Bob Clay: The Minister spoke about the conditions that the Secretary of State would want to be met for secession and part secession. What would he the position on historic debt charges? The hon. Gentleman answered one example about revenue costs. Tyne and Wear has huge debt charges because of the Metro system. Would the Minister oblige a district council that wanted to secede to make a contribution to historic debt costs?

Mr. Mitchell: It would be wrong for me to give a detailed answer to a hypothetical question, as no district in Tyne and Wear has expressed an interest in seeking to secede under these provisions.
It is right that I should now come to the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has been pressing me to answer—the central issue of this group of amendments, which is accountability. The Bill provided for the costs arising from PTA policies to be met by precepting on the charge payers at large—broadly, the electorate. However, the PTA membership is not chosen by the electorate and we wish to improve its accountability to the electors by bringing the districts and PTAs closer together in the decision-making process. It is the metropolitan councillors who are directly elected, so the metropolitan district councils must be accountable, and seen to be so, for the expenditure. Under the proposals they will receive the PTA's bills. They can consider them and instruct their representatives on the PTA on the future level of service provision and spending that they want.

Mr. Robert Hughes: They can do that now.

Mr. Mitchell: The big difference is that if the electorate at large receives the bill but does not elect the PTA it can have no direct influence on the PTA's policies. This measure will mean that the district council will receive the bill, consider it and instruct its representatives about what future bills will be acceptable—or unacceptable. Hon. Members may doubt the importance of accountability, but experience with transport services in metropolitan counties before the introduction of precept control is a good example of what happens if there is not adequate accountability.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister must justify why, after the Bill was published, revelation and enthusiasm for accountability suddenly came to him like a bolt of lightning. Did he fall or was he pushed by the Treasury, or by somebody else?

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The reason that it has come about is the recognition that, as events have unfolded, districts have taken little interest in what has been happening with PTAs. The reason they have taken little interest is that they were not going to pick up the bill. The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are annoyed because it means that districts will pick up the bill, scrutinise it, and consider what is or is not acceptable in it.

Mr. Hughes: That will not do. That must have been known to the Minister when the Bill was published. On the face of the Bill was the right for PTAs to be precept-charging authorities. Why, after the Bill was published and when it was being considered in Committee, did he suddenly decide to change the legislation in the way that he now proposes?

Mr. Mitchell: I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman why that is. I must ask him to accept that explanation. Accountability is the gravamen of the whole case. If we look at the period before precept capping came along, we can clearly see the real problem. Subsidising bus services, either by lower fares or by increased services, is popular—

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I shall finish this point and then I shall give way.
Subsidising bus services, either by lower fares or by increased services, is popular with the voter but less popular with the ratepayer. If the voter and the ratepayer are not the same person, there is an almost irresistible temptation to buy popularity by spending the ratepayers' money for them.

Mr. Snape: That is not true.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.
When we introduce accountability and make the people who are meeting the bill send representatives to decide what size the bill will be, we shall genuinely have accountabiity and a way of stopping runaway expenditure. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and the House want proof of the validity of that point, I remind them that, before precept control, on average, a. shire county spent £5·45 per head of population for bus service subsidies. In Avon, which was very nearly made


into a metropolitan county, the figure was £5.12. As soon as we consider the metropolitan counties and the action that I have been describing took place—

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I just want to finish this one point.
Instead of it being £5 in Manchester, the figure was about £24 per man, woman and child. In Merseyside, it was about £45 per man, woman and child, and in South Yorkshire it was about £59 per man, woman and child. That demonstrates what happens when we do not have accountability. That is why it is right that the House should pass the amendments and give the accountability that is so needed to protect ratepayers in the metropolitan areas of the country.

Mrs. Mahon: The Minister has not answered the question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has spoken.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

DUTY TO SET SUBSTITUTED AMOUNTS

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 19, leave out line 13.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 222.

Division No. 269]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allason, Rupert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Day, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dorrell, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
Kilfedder, James


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Farr, Sir John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Ian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lightbown, David


Franks, Cecil
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fry, Peter
Lord, Michael


Gale, Roger
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrea, Rev William


Goodlad, Alastair
McCrindle, Robert


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
Maclean, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Major, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maples, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marland, Paul


Grist, Ian
Marlow, Tony


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grylls, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hanley, Jeremy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hannam,John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mellor, David


Harris, David
Miller, Hal


Hawkins, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Heddle, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moss, Malcolm


Holt, Richard
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Michael
Needham, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Neubert, Michael


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Page, Richard


Irving, Charles
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jackson, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Janman, Tim
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pawsey, James


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)






Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Renton, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walden, George


Scott, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walters. Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)



Stokes, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Sumberg, David
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Summerson, Hugo





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Alien (Paisley N)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cox, Tom


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Bradley, Keith
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Bruce. Malcolm (Gordon)
Dalyell, Tam





Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Bob


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Doran, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, Stuart
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Salmond, Alex


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Sedgemore, Brian


Howells, Geraint
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kennedy, Charles
Steinberg, Gerry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lewis, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Wall, Pat


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Walley, Joan


McAllion, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N.


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wigley, Dafydd






Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Alun Michael.


Worthington, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [22 February and 13 April] and the Resolution [18 April], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the end of clause 36.

Clause 35

INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 21, line 18, leave out `expiry' and insert 'end'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 36

STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE MULTIPLIERS

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 21, line 41, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) Regulations under this section in their application to a particular financial year (including regulations amending or revoking others) shall not be effective unless they come into force before I January in the preceding financial year.'.—[Mr. Mr. Ridley.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Conduct)

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Leader of the House to move the motion in his name, may I remind the House that the exercise of its disciplinary powers in relation to one of its own Members is one of its most solemn and responsible duties. I trust that the forthcoming debate will be conducted in accordance with the best traditions of this House, and that in reviewing the conduct of a colleague we shall conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the responsibility that we bear.
In order to allow the House the possibility of choosing what alternative penalty, if any, is appropriate in this case, I have selected both of the amendments on the Order Paper. I shall permit a general debate on the motion and the amendments. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, if it is desired to move both amendments after the conclusion of the debate, it will be necessary for it to end approximately 20 minutes before the allotted time so that there will be an opportunity for both amendments to be taken.
I ask hon. Members to bear these considerations in mind. In view of the long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate, I ask for brief speeches.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, and be held responsible for the damage that was sustained by the Mace.
The motion before the House was tabled last night following discussions through the usual channels, and with the agreement of the official Opposition. The points of order yesterday afternoon about the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) after which I undertook to bring forward a motion showed how seriously the House regards this matter. The agreement to the motion from both sides of the Chamber is a clear sign that the House generally accepts the importance of upholding the authority of the Chair.
The incidents to which the motion refers took place yesterday and the day before, so the House will need little reminding of them. On Monday night, at the end of the proceedings, the hon. Member for Leith threw some papers on to the floor of the Chamber and picked up the Mace. He then released it, and, as it hit the ground, it sustained a certain amount of damage. As you told the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the extent of that damage is now being assessed.
Arrangements were made yesterday for the hon. Member to make a personal statement at 3.30 pm about his conduct the previous night. Despite being given ample opportunity by you, Mr. Speaker, to make his statement and apologise, he failed to do so in a way which satisfied the House and had to be asked to withdraw from the Chamber.
I have deliberately given a low-key factual account of what happened, but it is clear that many right hon. and hon. Members are—in my view rightly—very concerned at this behaviour. The conduct of the hon. Member for Leith


showed a deep disrespect for the dignity and position of the Speaker of this House and the authority he exercises on behalf of the House itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was right to point out yesterday that the House is generous to those who make personal statements expressing regret for action taken in the heat of the moment. I am sure that hon. Members can think for themselves of occasions when this has occurred. Very often the House may decide that on these occasions no further action is needed. But I do not think that anyone who heard the hon. Member for Leith yesterday could believe that he regretted his action, and indeed I understand that he has since said as much to the press. That is why the House must take this matter so seriously.
The action which the motion proposes is twofold. The first element is that the hon. Member for Leith should be suspended from the service of the House for 20 sitting days. This is, of course, the level of penalty which would automatically follow on the second occasion in a single Session that the same hon. Member had been named. The second element is that the hon. Member should be held responsible for the damage sustained by the Mace, and should thus pay for the repair work it needs. I do not think many hon. Members would disagree with the view that the hon. Member for Leith's aggravation of his original misconduct by his persistent refusal to offer a satisfactory apology justifies a penalty more severe than that which he would have received yesterday had he been named. Nor do I think any hon. Member would feel it right for the public purse to bear the cost of putting right the damage done to the Mace as a result of the hon. Member's conduct.
It may be helpful if I now say a few words about each of the amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected.
The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would reduce the penalty for the hon. Member for Leith to financial liability for the damage caused to the Mace. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while that might conceivably have been acceptable to the House if the hon. Member for Leith had shown yesterday any genuine regret for what he had done, in the circumstances where he quite clearly has not, for the sake of its own reputation I do not believe the House would or should agree to that amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), by contrast, would take a tougher line than would my motion which was agreed through the usual channels. He would ask the House to suspend the hon. Member for Leith without pay for 60 sitting days and insist on an acceptable apology before the suspension was lifted. I greatly sympathise with the concerns behind my hon. Friend's amendment. But I do not think that it would be right to bring forward new disciplinary measures—docking salary and making an end to the suspension dependent on an acceptable apology are novel—in one particular case without a more general consideration of the House's power in this respect. As the House will know, I said at business questions last week that I expect to set up the Procedure Committee very shortly. Indeed, I hope to table the motion next week. It may be that that Committee would wish to carry out a review of our disciplinary procedures and, if so, I am sure that the House would wish to take its comments into account before making any changes.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Obviously, the House must take careful note of what he has said concerning the ordinary penalty that this House is accustomed to impose in situations of this kind. Nevertheless, could he state whether there has been an increase in incidents giving rise to suspension in recent years which might lead the House or the Committee that he is setting up to draw the conclusion that that sanction is possibly less adequate than it has been in the past?

Mr. Wakeham: Since the end of the war in 1945, there have been 24 suspensions of five days for hon. Members acting in defiance of the Chair, of which seven have occurred in this Session, since we returned in the autumn.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Leader of the House accept that there have been previous examples of many suspensions being made on the same day, for example, in 1881, a total of 28—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members are not interested in any form of historical perspective. In 1881, 28 hon. Members were expelled on the same day. Should not the Leader of the House look back a little further to see what happened in the past?

Mr. Wakeham: We are living in the present day and are trying to deal with the present problems. I have to say that seven suspensions in this Session of Parliament, compared with the total of 24 for similar offences for the entire period since the war, is something that I should have thought was of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say just this. It is a privilege of which many of us are very conscious to be a Member of this place. That privilege carries the responsibility of respecting the authority the House itself places in the holder of the office of Speaker and of observing the procedures and practices by which we order our discussions. When those are defied, we cannot take the matter lightly, and must act in self-regulation. No amount of regulation by the House can adequately substitute for self-discipline and self-control on the part of each individual hon. Member. But, in the present circumstances, the motion proposes a disciplinary course which I believe the House as a whole will find it right to take. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: From time to time, because we are overwrought, angry or frustrated, we all make fools of ourselves, including in this place, but we all live in hope of the opportunity to recover our reputations—

Mr. Ron Brown: My old mum says that one must apologise, and I cannot knock that. Clearly, individuals here and elsewhere are worried about this mess. I hope that they are also worried about the working class and what it has to suffer. If you, Mr. Speaker, want an apology, so be it, you can have an apology, but only if one apologises also to the working class for what it has to suffer—fair do's. That is fair enough with me.
Back home in Scotland, back in Leith, there are many unemployed engineering workers. If the Mace has been damaged, they will be willing to repair it. In fact, they will give you a new one, Mr. Speaker. That is a guarantee to you. If you are worried about a bauble, as Cromwell said,


you are worried about nothing. What is important is this country. It is important because it belongs to us. It does not belong to certain individuals in this place. Democracy will be fought for outside this place. I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be more appropriate if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) sought to make a speech.

Mr. Brown: I know that you are trying to protect me, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, if we say and do certain things, we must accept the consequence. Please pass on the bill if I have offended you.

Mr. Dobson: I shall not attempt to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). I expect that he will be called to speak in the debate.
Late on Monday evening, the hon. Member for Leith picked up the Mace, for whatever reason, dropped it and damaged it. The following morning, the Opposition Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and explained to him that by custom in this place he could make a personal statement apologising for what he had done, but that the terms of the statement had to be agreed with you, Mr. Speaker. This he agreed to do. He agreed also to make good the damage to the Mace. He was asked to stand by in his office while it was discovered what terms of apology would be acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker. This was done particularly as it was not a matter in which a personal statement about another Member was concerned. It was a matter that was related directly to your authority.
Later the hon. Member for Leith could not be found. He got in contact with the Opposition Chief Whip at 3.25 pm, five minutes before he would have had to make the apology if he chose to do so. He was given a copy of wording which had been agreed by you, Mr. Speaker, and he told the Opposition Chief Whip that he would make the apology in those terms. Lest anyone feels that the terms suggested were personally humiliating, I shall read them out:
I wish to make a personal statement, Mr. Speaker. I regret my action last night in regard to the Mace, and I apologise unreservedly to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for what occurred. I accept responsibility for any damage that was sustained by the Mace.
You duly gave the hon. Member for Leith no fewer than nine opportunities to make that apology in the terms agreed with you, Mr. Speaker, and this he failed to do. You asked him to leave the Chamber and he did.
There can be no question of leaving it at that. Such behaviour would not be acceptable in any other organisation and it is not acceptable here. Members are elected to this House to represent the people in their constituencies. Most of that representation is done by word. That is partly by the written word but mainly in here by the spoken word. Before words can have influence, they must be heeded. Before words can be heeded, they must be heard. For them to be heard, there must be order. Without rules of order and without someone to sustain and apply those rules, there can be neither debate nor opportunity to influence those outside this place who hear or read what we have said.
It is not only Parliament that has rules for the conduct of its business. Every organisation has such rules because

without them organisations cannot function. Nowhere is this more true than in the Labour and trade union movement. Every trade union has a rule book, and most of them spell out what can and cannot be done at meetings if the views of the members are to prevail. All grown-up people know that such rules exist and that they must be accepted, and that if they are not, those who breach them must take the consequences. A great deal of our childhood is taken up by learning just that.
I shall give two examples drawn from the heart of the Labour movement to illustrate what I am trying to say. The rule book of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, of which the hon. Member for Leith is a member, sets out the duties of presidents in the union, from branch presidents to national presidents. The first duty of the branch president in the AEU rule book is to preside over all meetings and to see that the business is conducted with propriety and order. For another example I draw upon Citrine's famous book "ABC of Chairmanship" which spells out that if any delegate to the Trades Union Congress refuses to obey the president when called to order he or she shall be expelled from the hall and allowed back in only if he or she expresses regret and the delegates consent to his or her return.
That springs from the simple recognition by ordinary working people over the years that the proper and orderly conduct of business is necessary if their interests are to be promoted. There is nothing soft, wet or weak about such an approach. Quite the reverse; it requires self-control, self-discipline and team work. Perhaps we should remember Hemingway's definition of guts, which he described as "grace under pressure."
Of course, the House of Commons is not always orderly. Many of us, including me, from time to time are ill-disciplined. When this place is disorderly or ill-disciplined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, it is only reflecting what has happened many times in the past. There are many things wrong with this place that Opposition Members would like to see changed. We would like to change the policies of the Government. We would like to change the Government. We would like to see changes in the procedures of this place and make all Governments more accountable. We would like to see far-reaching changes in the working practices here. However, I know of no one who wishes to get rid of the rules that are designed to secure a hearing for all or who wishes to diminish the authority of Mr. Speaker to help to achieve that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that my hon. Friend has got on to the question of working practices in the House, will he take into account the fact that in this quaint little club there are practices that allow Members of Parliament to turn up for work when it suits them without clocking on? It allows Members of Parliament, such as Tory Members, to go on jaunts to the Both a regime, paid for by that evil system. It allows many Tory Members in particular to make money on the side by moonlighting with four, five or six different jobs. Is it not time that the Opposition Front Bench concentrated on those issues instead of attacking one of its own?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with many of the criticisms that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has


levelled at this place and at some Tory Members. However, I do not think that what he is suggesting is the way to go about changing matters.
We have a Government—I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me—who are arrogant with power. They are often unwilling to answer our points. They ignore what we believe to be the sufferings of many of our people. We all find that very frustrating, and our frustration manifests itself in many ways. People occasionally, on the spur of the moment, may do foolish things or behave in a disorderly way. However, that does not mean that they care more about what is happening to our country or that they are working harder in the House than others to try to put things right.
Day in and day out, most Opposition Members are doing their hardest to represent their constituencies, to expose what is wrong with the Government and to propose alternatives to what is happening to our country. They try to make the most of the opportunities available in this place. They try to be sensible, trenchant, committed and coherent. For those qualities to show through, we need a House of Commons that is orderly, or usually orderly. For it to be orderly, we need to sustain the authority of the Chair, and the only way in which we can do that tonight is by voting for the motion and rejecting the two amendments.

Sir Bernard Braine: A great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) must be agreed by the whole House. I would respectfully submit, however, that the bizarre actions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) cannot be seen wholly in isolation. They were but one more instance of a deterioration in the standards of behaviour in this place which has manifested itself in the last few months. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman did—I must say this in fairness—cannot wholly be set apart from what went before.
There is no escape for any of us who have wittingly or even unwittingly made a contribution to this rising tide of disorder. It is one of life's ironies that we do not always see where our own behaviour is leading us. After this latest episode we should be able to see it all too clearly.
Let us speak plainly. For some time there have been those in our midst—only a few, I believe—who have been openly advocating the disruption of Parliament as a means to a political end. Are they not as much to blame as the hon. Member for Leith?
I should like to keep this in perspective. Down the years, disruptive behaviour and even violence have not been unknown in this place. There were many instances in the last century and in this of disorder and violence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am one of those to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. If the argument is to be generalised, one has to take into account other considerations. I happen to think that it should not be generalised tonight. There is the question of the organised mendacity of others if the right hon. Gentleman intends to make generalisations.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that to intervene at the beginning of an argument is often a waste of time. If he would hear what I have to say, I think that at the end of it he, a formidable parliamentarian in his own right, would understand what I am driving at.
In 1893, during the 47th sitting on the Home Rule Bill of that year, there was not only complete uproar but violence. According to one report, when it was all over, the Floor of the Chamber was found to be strewn with scarf pins and artificial teeth. But always in the past the overwhelming majority drew back from the brink. Extremist behaviour was curbed and the outside world continued to admire the way in which contrary views could be expressed here with lucidity, with feeling and even on some occasions with passion.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not give way. This is a short debate and I want to say something which I hope is important. I trust that my hon. Friend will understand.
There is no need for disruptive behaviour in this place. There are those amongst us who know that in the voicing of grievances and in the righting of wrongs there are procedural devices by which the astute can get results. I have learnt a few of the tricks myself in my time. I know of no greater authority on procedure than my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hislop). In this

Parliament no fewer than seven hon. Members have been suspended, and there is open talk in some quarters of further disruption of our proceedings.
I am not making excuses for the hon. Member for Leith. If his defiance of the norms of decent parliamentary behaviour continues, he must be dealt with effectively. One of the greatest of parliamentarians, Edmund Burke, held:
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom".
That is generally good advice, but there is a point at which we have to say that this House is always more important than the sum total of those who constitute it at any one time.
Governments come and go. Ministers are vested with a little brief authority. None of us is master here. We are all trustees for the nation, for those who have gone before and for those who are still unborn. Running off with the Mace, throwing it down or dropping it are acts of violence. That "bauble", as Oliver Cromwell referred to it contemptuously, symbolises in one sense the authority which you, Mr. Speaker, derive from the Sovereign. In a wider sense, it symbolises everything that we represent here and seek to defend—a system which facilitates change within a framework of order and proper respect for continuity. To treat the Mace with contempt is to treat the system with contempt, and that is to treat all of us and those who elected us to this place with contempt. It fires a shot at the governing party, but, more than that, it fires a shot at all political parties. It is a direct challenge to the authority of the Chair, and that is what is intended.
You have a difficult enough task, Mr. Speaker, in holding a fair balance between parties and between strongly expressed, opposing and sincerely held points of view. Precisely because you are the protector of our rights in this place, you are entitled to have our support at all times.
I remember not so many years ago a formidable figure in the Liberal party—the late Mr. Clement Davies—who, in the midst of a disruptive scene when certain elements were attacking the Chair, silenced the House by saying, "In this country people do not like the side that kicks a referee." If we continue kicking the referee, as some hon. Members seek to do, the game is not worth playing and the public will lose interest. There will be great anger. We must stop the rot while the time is right.
Whatever our differences, the House will be united on that. You have powers, Mr. Speaker. You should use them. If they are not sufficient in the light of future misbehaviour, the House can give you extra powers. I am convinced that the House is about to draw back from the brink and, therefore, I argue that we should accept the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That should do the trick. I hope that this short debate will illustrate that the House of Commons intends to he master in its own house.

Mr. James Wallace: I do not want to dwell at length on the actions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), which have been described by the Leader of the House and the hon. Member fo Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). His abuse of the Mace—the symbol of your authority, Mr. Speaker—and pathetic performance yesterday speak for themselves and merit at least the sanction proposed in the motion moved by the Leader of the House.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his opposition to the fiscal penalty proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). Before embarking on the imposition of fiscal penalties on people, it is important that we think carefully. I welcome the announcement that the Procedure Committee will consider these matters. Certain rules of natural justice, which I hope that the Committee will address, should be observed.
My right hon. and hon. Friends uphold, above all, the concept of parliamentary democracy. Like the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, we believe that this is a place where political issues are debated. It greatly distresses us when organised barracking drowns out free speech, however unpalatable the views expressed.
Equally, it distresses us when parties represented in the House suggest outside the House illegal methods of challenging laws passed by the House. If we aspire, as all of us in the various parties do, to come to government and pass laws ourselves, we expect the country at large to obey those laws. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy. We very much regret, therefore, the challenge to parliamentary democracy and to your office, Mr. Speaker, mounted by the hon. Member for Leith, and we support the Leader of the House's motion.
Finally, I believe that there are other ways in which parliamentary democracy can be undermined. The essence of civilised democracy is that the rights of minorities are respected. When a Government say that they will carry on regardless and do not heed the dissenting voices, even within their own ranks, that quality of listening to minorities—the essence of parliamentary democracy—is undermined.
The institutions of the House are attacked when the Government opt for the grandeur of the stage-managed press conference instead of coming to answer hon. Members at the Dispatch Box. While we deal with the activities of the hon. Member for Leith, we should remember that there are various ways of undermining parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: It is clear that both sides of the House are largely united in condemning the disgraceful events that have led to this debate on the conduct of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). If you, Mr. Speaker, had been led yesterday simply to name him and he had withdrawn from the House for no more than five days, that would scarcely have been sufficient penalty for the gravity of his offence. We are grateful to you, therefore, for the opportunity to debate the matter more widely.
It is also important to note that the debate provides an opportunity for the House to focus on a situation that has been causing growing impatience both inside and outside the House. No one gainsays that there must be a place in politics for passion, but we all agree that there is no place in the House for deliberate, cold-blooded disruption of democratic processes.
That is why it is right to reinforce some of the figures that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave by reminding the House that between 1974 and 1980—a period largely dominated by a Labour Government who could not really be described as popular—there were no

suspensions in this place. Since 1981, there have been 18. I am glad to say that none of those have come from the party to which I have the honour to belong.
You, Mr. Speaker, know that many of my hon. Friends have been deeply angered by the persistent challenges to your authority. That is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said about the re-establishment of the Procedure Committee for which many of us have been pressing for a long time. If cur Standing Orders need to be reinforced, that is the right way to go about it. If the penalties are inadequate, that is the right place to debate how much stronger they should be made. But if the House then decides that the Chair needs stronger powers, the purpose of those powers will not be to suppress opposition or to create martyrs, because it is a mistake in politics to do either of those things.
In the days of John Wilkes, the occupant of the Chair, Mr. Speaker Onslow, once found himself burnt in effigy on Tower Hill by the street politicians of the day. Because they thought that they were defending a martyr, they raised the cry of, "Wilkes and liberty." However, this evening we are not talking about liberty; we are talking about licence. There is no doubt that the abuse of his position by the hon. Member for Leith makes it necessary that his licence should be withdrawn, as the motion proposes.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to move my amendment which would—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment at the end. This is a general debate.

Mr. Cryer: I hope that the House will support my amendment and I shall say briefly why. A principal reason is that the atmosphere of the House yesterday was not the cosy, still atmosphere that some hon. Members imply in their condemnation. There was a great deal of shouting and bellowing from the pinstriped hooligans on the Tory Benches, and that must be taken into account. When hon. Members talk about undermining democracy, they would do well to remember that Peter Wright wrote more about that in MI5 than whatever could have conceivably happened in this place.
This place rests on precedent. "Erskine May" is virtually a list of them—a thick list. We can recall, for example, the precedent of the right hon. Member For Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the night when he came down, took up the Mace and started whirling it around. He was forced to put it back by the moderate Jim Prior who presumably did not think that that was the way forward for the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman apologised the following day and no more was heard about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Gentleman was heard in silence. We are considering the difference between the two cases. The apology from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was less than fulsome, but it was repeated twice—[Interruption.] Yet, the House is saying that for a fumbled apology my hon. Friend should be suspended; for 20 days.
There is a further precedent for this resolution. On Monday 1 November 1976, the House established a Select Committee to examine the conduct of three hon. Members. The report was considered on 26 July and one


of the hon. Members subsequently resigned. Those three had consistently over several years used their position as Members of the House for personal financial gain in approaches to Ministers and public bodies, and in asking questions and raising issues in the House. Those financial gains were never disclosed. It would be fair to say that all three were in the pocket of J. G. L. Poulson.
As I have mentioned, one resigned. Albert Roberts and Reginald Maudling faced a similar resolution to this one. What were the precedents then? Were a large number of Conservatives waiting for blood, as is obviously the case tonight? The resolution to agree with the Select Committee report—a Select Committee established and approved by the House—was defeated and an amendment was inserted simply to "take note" of the report. Resolutions to suspend the two for six months without pay were defeated by massive majorities of about 200. After a career of abusing the House for several years, those two hon. Members got off scot-free, despite being involved in one of the widest cases of local and national government corruption in the 20th century.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said:
We should realise, looking back over the period in question, which is 13 to 14 years, that there are few of us who can say that we have done everything completely as we might have wished or who have not made the odd mistake. If our colleagues have erred in any judgment, they have suffered more than enough from the publicity following the Report and during previous years when their names were constantly in the headlines.
We can serve the House best and show understanding best by taking note and leaving the matter there."—[Official Report, 26 July 1977; Vol. 936 c. 438.]
I recall that you, Mr. Speaker were convinced by that
call for consideration and understanding, and voted for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South. I urge the House to have the same compassion and understanding that the hon. Gentleman had on that occasion.
The truth of the matter is that we are here dealing with two very minor incidents compared with that on 26 July 1977. The House would do well to bear that fact in mind and support my amendment, which allows for a "take note" motion as on 26 July and for the costs of repairing the Mace to be charged to my hon. Friend the Member for Leith.

Mr. Eric Forth: This is a matter of the utmost gravity, as seems to be widely agreed throughout the House, though I have to say that what has just been said by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggests that he does not understand its gravity.
We must all begin from the point that the Mace symbolises not only the House itself but your authority, Mr. Speaker. The House cannot let go unrecognised or unpunished the actions of a Member who lifts the Mace and drops it or throws it to the floor and damages it. That action goes beyond the mere damage done to the Mace. It suggests an attitude to the House and to your authority, Mr. Speaker, that is totally unacceptable.
We are not looking at this action in isolation, because it must be seen in the context of something that has already

been mentioned this evening—a growing incidence of such activities in the House. It is against that background that the activities of the hon. Member for Edinburgh Leith (Mr. Brown) must be judged.
Reference must also be made to the events in the House yesterday. When the hon. Member for Leith was given opportunity to apologise to the House, he deliberately refused that opportunity and set out systematically to undermine the authority of the Chair. His use of the phrase
I did not write this rubbish."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 676.]
when referring to the agreed apology, sums up well the attitude of the hon. Member to yourself, Mr. Speaker, to the Chair, and to the House. In that respect, the hon. Gentleman's attitude and activities must be regarded as completely unacceptable.
There is a motion before the House in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the House should be grateful for the fact the Opposition have seen fit to support it. I do not believe that it goes far enough. One of the main reasons is that it seeks merely to suspend the hon. Gentleman for 20 days, with no effect on his pay.
I shall now answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He told the House that we are to have a Procedure Committee and that it will consider the matter before us. In the light of what has happened in the past two days, I believe that it is the right and the duty of the House to judge the actions of the hon. Member for Leith and to give the Procedure Committee guidance on the action that it should take, by accepting the terms of my amendment. That would tell the Committee, under the authority of the House, that the House expects the penalties available to you, Mr. Speaker, to be much more severe in future.
If we were to accept the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, supported by the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Leith, would be suspended, yes, but he would be able to return to the service of the House without ever having given an apology to the House for what he did. I view that as completely unacceptable. My amendment, in requiring from the hon. Gentleman an apology that is acceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House before he is allowed to return, is the only basis on which we can allow him to return. I hope that the House will consider that proposal most seriously in determining how it votes this evening.

Mr. Harry Ewing: This is a sad occasion for the House of Commons, and any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who takes pleasure from this debate must have a perverted sense of justice. It is at moments like this that I never envy a judge or magistrate having to sit in judgment on his fellow men. I do not enjoy what is happening in the House tonight, and I suspect strongly that there are a great many right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches and in all quarters of the House who share my sadness that we have to sit in judgment on one of our colleagues.
When I go into the Division Lobby, as I will, it will be in support of the motion. I say to my colleagues who are in doubt that this is a Labour party motion—an Opposition motion—as much as it is a Government motion. When I go into the Lobby to support the motion I shall do so, not to punish my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), but to show my personal


displeasure—I can put it in no other words—at his conduct yesterday and the day before. The one thing that I shall not do is regard myself as going into the Lobby along with Conservative Members: I shall not see it in that light. This is, as I have said, as much a Labour as a Government motion. I shall also see myself, Mr. Speaker, as supporting you and the Chair.
I say openly and honestly that I have not always done that. I have never voted against a Speaker, but on occasions I have deliberately abstained. There have been times when I have played my part in disrupting the proceedings of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the shadow Leader of the House—made the telling point that, by the very nature of the Chamber, the issues with which we deal are bound, at one time or another, to result in our feelings spilling over so that we do things that we might not have done in our calmer moments.
Let me inject a lighter note into the few remarks that I wish to make. A comparison was drawn between my hon. Friend the Member for Leith and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and I should like to take the comparison a bit further. After the right hon. Member for Henley had waved the Mace in the House, Mr. Speaker Thomas suspended the sitting and refused to allow him to make his apology there and then. That was why the right hon. Gentleman had to come back and apologise the following day. But look at what has happened to the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to become a Cabinet Minister, and he is now challenging others for the position of leader of his party. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leith should give some further consideration to the apology that he refused to make yesterday.
Some of my colleagues—with most of whom I have had a lifelong friendship—now take the view that disruption should lead to destruction. Anyone who holds that view should dismiss it from his thoughts. We as a Labour movement have fought long and hard to represent our people here in this Chamber. If we destroy this place, we have no place left in which to voice the fears, worries and concerns of the people whom we represent.
Some of my hon. Friends may say, "Let us disregard this place and take the argument to the people." All right: we will follow that through. We take the argument to the people and we convince them: where do we go then? We will have no place left for legislation.
I caution all my hon. Friends who think that the way to unseat the Government—the way to prosecute our case—is to disrupt and destroy the Chamber to think long and carefully about where that process ends. It ends where it began: it ends without representation for the very people whom we are sent here to represent.

Mr. Ian Bruce: As a new boy—a member of the new intake—I found that it seemed almost like normal behaviour over the past 10 months to see Member after Member named by you, Mr. Speaker, for disruption in the House. It was with some surprise that I found that not a single hon. Member needed to be named and dismissed from the service of the House between 1974 and 1980.
In 1981 the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) found a method of disrupting this place and had to be named. The rot started there, and unfortunately the

next person to decide that this was a good way of getting his name into the newspapers was none other than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) who was dismissed from the service of the House not once, but twice. It is interesting to note that on both those occasions, Mr. Speaker Thomas did not need to call a vote. the hon. Gentleman was immediately suspended on the unanimous verbal vote of the whole House.
Now, time after time, it is necessary to suspend the business of the House for 15 minutes or more at a time, so that some hon. Member can get his name in the papers.
It is easy to be out of order by mistake in this place. It could be judged a legitimate parliamentary tactic to be deliberately out of order, but what cannot be sustained is that you should be challenged, Mr. Speaker, when you rule an hon. Member out of order. There are parliamentary tactics available to us for attacking our opponents, but we should never attack the Chair.
The best form of discipline is self-discipline. It would be good if all hon. Members understood that, but clearly they do not. I shall certainly support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for the hon. Member for Leith to be suspended for a long period, to lose his salary and to have to apologise to the Chair before he returns.

Mr. Tony Benn: Tonight the House is sitting, as you said, Mr. Speaker, in a judicial capacity. We are the prosecution, the judge and the jury, and the executioner stands in the Serjeant at Arms' Box.
This is a House of Commons matter, on which we should all be free to vote. I am deeply uneasy about a sentence negotiated between the two Front Benches, for the simple reason that, on matters of this sort, every hon. Member must reach a judgment. [Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen to my argument, because I am not in favour of hon. Members getting themselves expelled from the House.
If I had ever been asked by anyone—I have not—I should have advised them that there were other ways of getting their case across—in questions, speeches, motions, points of order, and even in motions of censure against the Speaker. On one occasion I moved such a motion, which was well in order. Those who say that hon. Members must support the Speaker forget that there is an ultimate right to move a motion against him if that is the right thing to do.
At the same time, I know that there is a degree of anger about what is happening in this country and about the violence that is being perpetrated against our constituents by the Conservative party. That leads to much anger among hon. Members. The question for us tonight is solely what we should do about it.
I want to put a simple point before the House. We are a representative body and our duty is to those who sent us here and not to each other—except in one special context. We hold our privileges on behalf of those who sent us here. If an hon. Member says, "I do not want the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith back until he has done this or that," he is assuming the rights of my hon. Friend's constituents. No hon. Member is in the House because other hon. Members approve of him. The day that we accept that the House can remove an hon. Member will be the day that we destroy parliamentary democracy.
I say that with some feeling, because, historically, some hon. Members have been in the most severe breach of duty. I refer to hon. Members elected on one party ticket who remain in the House and change their allegiance. I regard that as a profound betrayal of their true responsibility to their constituents. In that regard, I shall make a reference that is of special relevance. My father was the Liberal Member for Leith. The day that he joined the Labour party he applied for the Chiltern Hundreds and left the House. Unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), he did not believe that it was right to be elected as a Liberal Member and remain in the House as a Labour one.
If we remove my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) we are punishing not him—except financially—but his constituents. I do not think that the House has the right to remove hon. Members. I say that with some feeling, because I was expelled from the House by the House on the most ludicrous ground of peerage. I was an elected Member for 10 years, and the same sort of hon. Member who will troop through the Lobby to get rid of my hon. Friend, denied the electors of Bristol—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member should have a right to say what he wishes, provided it is in order, and the right hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for supporting what I am saying. [Laughter.] When the passions of hon. Members subside, it may be that the high excitement tonight would not look so good if a precedent were to be created and became part of the procedure of the House.
It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Leith broke the rules of the House, but they are not the same as the basic principles of parliamentary democracy; they are the rules of the club. If parliamentary democracy depended on a bit of metal on the Table, we would all be in trouble.
If one looks at the history of disorder, one sees that there are some formidable precedents. The King came here and Mr. Speaker Lenthall had to deal with him. Cromwell removed the bauble. The home rule debates of the 1880s led to the first invention of a closure. There was no English word for it, so the French word, "cloture" had to be used, and then we moved to "guillotine" and other French words. It was unknown in our history to limit debate.
Before the war, Beckett swung the Mace about and was put in the Clock Tower. As there have been so many references to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) I shall not add to them. Manny Shinwell—who, on his 100th birthday, was paid a special tribute in the House of Lords—crossed the Floor of the House and struck Commander Bower because he thought that he had made an anti-Semitic remark. In my time, George Wigg struck a Tory Member in the precincts of the House. Bernadette Devlin struck Reginald Maudling. Private Eye said that she nearly woke him up.
The reality is that we can become awfully pompous about disorder in the House. I shall tell one brief true story concerning my former hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, Leslie Hale and the then Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Charles MacAndrew. Leslie was

short and red faced and Sir Charles MacAndrew was tall and severe with white hair that looked like a wig. One night, in the middle of a Committee stage, Leslie Hale was speaking. MacAndrew told him to withdraw a remark. Hale said he would not. MacAndrew said "Are you challenging my ruling?" Hale said, "Yes, I am." Sir Charles MacAndrew said, "I shall ask you to leave." Hale said, "I will not leave." Then it all faded away. I said to Leslie Hale afterwards, "What happened?" and he said, "Charlie MacAndrew came up to me and said, 'I have guests in the Gallery tonight Leslie. Will you challenge one of my rulings?'."
That is an absolutely true story—[Interruption.] Dare I say it, there is a lot of synthetic indignation and the day will come when we will bring children round and say, "That is where it happened."
You, Mr. Speaker, have at your disposal the power to suspend the sitting. You can take an idea from the other place—not a Chamber which I like—which adopts the practice of moving that "the noble Lord be no longer heard." That is a disciplinary measure. You, Mr. Speaker, could rely on pressure from colleagues. As you look at the angry faces on our Benches, you know that whatever the House does to my hon. Friend is nothing to the fate that awaits him when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gets at him when he returns.
Are you, Mr. Speaker, really saying that this is the end of parliamentary democracy? It is nothing of the kind. In my opinion, my hon. Friend did a silly thing. I have told him that tonight, he should get up, read the apology, say nothing and withdraw. I gave him that advice because the House is happy always to accept it.
I beg the House tonight, in high passion with some entertainment value added, not to go through the Lobby and throw out a Member of this House for four weeks for what, however we judge it, was a minor offence. It was not a pre-arranged offence, it was nothing to do with a plan of disruption discussed secretly by hon. Members. It was nothing of the kind.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: No. I am on my last words.
I appeal to hon. Members to have a sense of proportion about the whole matter.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall finish on these words, if I am allowed to get them out. I am depending on you, Mr. Speaker to protect me from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member is not giving way.

Mr. Benn: I am not giving way to my hon. Friend, but if he gets slung out, I will support him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds: It is parliamentary convention for hon. Members to give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not giving way.

Mr. Benn: I am not giving way only because, knowing my hon. Friend very well, he might make it worse. Therefore, I hope that the House will allow me to say my last sentence.
Have a sense of proportion. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith has done something for which I fear later his colleagues will exact a terrible price. I shall make a similar speech when the moment comes. Tonight, the House has made its point and I suggest that we leave it with two speeches, we do not go into the Lobbies, and we let it pass into the history of the Chamber along with more dangerous and sensational events.

Mr. John Biffen: We have just heard a delightful speech, a tour de force, a patrician view. Those who live cocooned in that kind of political and physical comfort often can be much more detached, if not semi-detached, about these affairs.
I suggest to the House that there is an underlying seriousness. The House knows perfectly well that this is a disagreeable and uncomfortable occasion that we would much rather do without. At least we have had the advantage of the debate being introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and responded to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in a manner which has elevated it as much as possible in these circumstances.
I ask the House to consider only two points. They may be dull and pedestrian. They do not have the panache and the glamour of the preceding speech, but they are possibly closer to the working-day reality of the House. The Mace exerts an almost mesmerising attraction for politicians from time to time. Such behaviour has occurred not just since the last war. It occurred in the interval between the two wars when a Mr. Forgan and a Mr. Beckett took charge of the Mace.
The Mace represents something of the utmost significance to the House. There are very few institutions to which we belong where there are not symbols that command collegiate respect. Therefore, the handling of the Mace is naturally not a matter of farce or dismissive comment. It is symbolic because of its wider implications.
I speak in all charity when I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) that all hon. Members are fighting their corner and that we have a pretty dismissive view of the judgment of our fellow Members. The hon. Gentleman is being arraigned on a question of judgment, certainly not on a question of honour. When one recalls the opportunity for the apology, it was the hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to abide by an unconditional agreement that worried me. The hon. Gentleman is not the only guilty one, but I do not intend to widen the debate.
To put it in as neutral terms as I can contrive, there has grown up over some time an increasing reluctance to accept Mr. Speaker's ruling, the judgment of the Chair, in a total and complete fashion, without any qualification whatsoever. I have watched—I must admit, reminiscent of my own days in the ranks of the Army, with some envy—the development of dumb insolence into an art form. That cannot continue. I promise the House that that kind of development is corrosive of authority and that eventually we shall all pay for it.
That brings me to the point that was so eloquently made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). The rules, orders and conventions, and the symbols that represent them that are evident in this House, are not the manufacture of the Treasury Bench. They are the manufacture of the House of Commons over the decades,

generations and centuries. Above all, they have been of value to unfashionable minorities—minorities who came here to crusade. When Red Clydesiders came to this House of Commons they did not come to it to destroy its institutions. They came to use them. To the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is muttering away, I say that if he can leave this institution with the reputation of Jimmy Maxton, he will have done pretty well by Socialism and pretty well by radicalism.
We must defend the Orders of the House, not to be on the side of the establishment but to protect essentially minority interests. That can be done only if we show a much more increased and a much more evident respect for authority both in this context and over a much wider field.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) who, as his neighbour the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out yesterday, suffered an industrial injury which, in the context of a motion for the Adjournment of the House on a matter relating to supplementary benefit appeals, led to his misuse of the Mace.
I have equal sympathy with you, Mr. Speaker, in your endeavours, with patience and good humour, to hold hon. Members to the Standing Orders of this House and to the precedents of "Erskine May". A massive Tory majority is being used not moderately, as we would expect, to unite the nation but to tear us all asunder. It seems determined to create not one nation among our people but a series of different nations and a series of mini-statelets consisting of the poor, the oppressed and the bewildered who, unable to fend for themselves, find a stony-faced Government bearing down upon them. They look to Parliament to redress their grievances and to protect their interests as best it can.
Faced with an onslaught on the living standards of those who sent Labour Members to Parliament—the onslaught on our National Health Service, on those who are entitled to social security, on those who have not gained what they thought they might gain under the Budget, and on those who are the victims of an iniquitous and divisive Government, with its poll tax—faced with these monumental and ravaging attacks, it is hardly surprising that discipline breaks down, frustration creeps in, and that frustration should express itself in aggressive ways and manners inappropriate to this House.
However, to explain how these things happen is not to justify them happening. However high ran the emotions of the hon. Member for Leith on Monday evening, the situation could not justify his refusal to make a personal statement to this House on the following day, when his emotions had cooled and when he had had an ample period for reflection. Indeed, those hon. Members who are in the Chamber tonight, and who were in the Chamber yesterday, noted how, with firmness but forebearance, you, Mr. Speaker, gave the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to make the statement which you had given him leave to make. His failure to do so brought contempt upon the Chair, and also brought contempt upon our parliamentary proceedings.
It is, of course, a parliamentary privilege to make a personal statement uninterrupted, which is without intervention or debate. As the hon. Member for Hornsey


and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) stated yesterday, the House will listen with indulgence and sympathy to those who have been carried away in the heat of the moment. However, privilege—parliamentary privilege—goes to the heart of our proceedings. The privilege to speak freely on any subject is a privilege that we claim from the Monarch at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session.
I advise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that this House has exclusive control over its own proceedings, and has seen the enhancement of our parliamentary democracy since the time of William and Mary, many years ago. It was Mr. Justice Coke—if I might tell the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—who in 1565 noted:
Whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere".
Therefore, if power and privilege rest with us, so too does responsibility. It is a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, we owe to you in the Chair. We owe it to you to uphold the authority of the Chair. It is a responsibility that we bear to the British people that the Executive should be held to account, that its policies should be probed and questioned, that hon. Members should be kept on their toes and feel understandably nervous at the Dispatch Box.
Any failure of this House to act responsibly towards a Member who has brought it into disrepute demeans the House and its reputation and diminishes it in the eyes of the public. What signal do we send to our collective electorate if we are unable to control the conduct of our own affairs?
I advise Labour Members that we are in a privileged position. We are in the vanguard of the Labour movement. We represent millions of voters out there in the field. If we act responsibly, they will respond to us. For that reason, I support the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, may I draw attention to what I said at the beginning of the debate. If the House desires to have two votes on this matter, we should be thinking about drawing the debate to a close.

Mr. Ron Brown: Perhaps there was a misunderstanding yesterday about what was meant by a personal statement. Certainly I knew what I intended to say, even though you, Mr. Speaker may have thought differently. That is in the past. I make it clear to the House that, if there is any damage to the Mace, it will be paid for by myself and my friends back home—the members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—who are quite happy to do what they can to make everything better, if that is what you want. They will certainly look at the Mace simply because it symbolises so much to so many hon. Members, on both sides of the House. We recognise that such things are important to certain hon. Members.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have that as a guarantee from me, but you still know my strength of feeling, bearing in mind what is happening to working class people, not just in Scotland but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That should be borne in mind. That is not a

political statement, but a statement that I make as the representative of Leith. I feel strongly about many things that have happened repeatedly since 1979.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The only reason I intervene is that I am probably the only Conservative Member who knows the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) well. The hon. Gentleman and I have paired for the last nine years—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will not escape the notice of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members that I therefore have something of a vested interest in what the House decides. However, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will accept that that is not the reason why I intervene. I do so because having known the hon. Gentleman for nine years and having got to know him quite well, I know him to be someone for whose political views I have absolutely no time at all and whose judgment I sometimes question politically.
I seldom agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has urged the hon. Gentleman to apologise, as I did at some length last night. I have intervened because I should like the House, and especially my hon. Friends, to take into account the fact that, having got to know the hon. Gentleman quite well, I find him to be someone of absolute integrity and total honesty. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the former Leader of the House said, this is not a question of the hon. Gentleman's honour, it is a question of his judgment. In my opinion, his judgment is appalling.
No one in the House would feel otherwise than that your authority, Mr. Speaker, has been questioned, that it should not have been and that action must be taken. However, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, when deciding the level of penalty, to take into account the fact that the hon. Gentleman's integrity sometimes leads him astray—on that occasion, it certainly did—and that they give him the benefit of that judgment.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Everyone in the House gets excited on occasions. If they do not get excited, they are not reflecting the worries, fears and excitement of their constituents. I well remember, when I first became a Member of the House, that Dame Irene Ward who had a great problem in her area, and who had raised the matter with the Ministers of the day time after time, without getting anywhere, walked from her place, stood in front of the Mace and, for a period of time, disrupted the House, and was named.
I had never seen that before, but I stored it in my memory until an occasion when we had been debating the Industrial Relations Act 1971. About 20 or 30 hon. Members—all members of the Tribune group, led incidentally by the present chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—stood in front of the Mace. I got up from the Front Bench and stood with them. We expected to be named, but Mr. Speaker of the day was a highly intelligent person. He looked through, round, above and below us, and he did not see us. He decided that we were not there.


The Division was called and it was then that the sitting was suspended. The then Mr. Speaker called a Division on a second occasion, as we had done it again.
Disruption has taken place on many occasions. I remember my hon. Friends and I singing "The Red Flag". I remember also the present leader of the Labour party joining in heartily. Indeed, he may have led the singing of "The Red Flag". Some of my hon. Friends threw pennies at us. They were the old-style large pennies. Had one of those pennies hit an hon. Member in the eye, it could have knocked it out. That was an act of some violence in the House. Let us get these matters into perspective.
I believe that there was a misunderstanding yesterday—[Interruption.] I wish that Conservative Members would listen carefully to what is being said. I said yesterday that I had not realised that personal statements made by hon. Members were agreed. I turned to the relevant passage in "Erskine May", and found that it does not provide that such statements have to be agreed: The passage reads:
provided that the Speaker has been informed of what the Member proposes to say, and has given leave.
I understand that that provision has been interpreted over the years as meaning that Mr. Speaker has to agree the words in the statement.
I understand also that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) did not meet and speak to you, Mr. Speaker, on any occasion yesterday. Instead, the matter was handled through the Opposition Whips' Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith was asked to go to the Chief Whip's Room, and I understand that he stayed there for some time. He did not stay there throughout, and I do not know to where he disappeared. I know only that he disappeared after a period.
My hon. Friend was handed the statement when he came into the Chamber, and it had never been discussed between him and yourself, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be an agreed statement, surely Mr. Speaker of the day and the Member, whoever he is, should ensure that there is a properly agreed statement, if that is the way in which such statements are to be handled.
If we heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Leith said or if we read what he said yesterday, it is clear that he was trying to apologise in his own way—[Interruption] I ask all hon. Members not to use a sledgehammer—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the House is slightly in front of me.
That is what I want to say to the House. In my opinion, the House has to be compassionate on this issue. I have defended many hon. Members over the years on issues when sometimes, looking back, perhaps I ought not to have done. However, I believe that hon. Members can get highly excited on occasions and we should take that into consideration. That is why I am asking the House to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), which I think is the best answer to the issue before us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I move my amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Other hon. Members are rising to speak. It is not up to me to accept a closure on timed business such as this.

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are still on the main Question. It is not possible to move the amendment at this point.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) certainly entertained and enlightened the House. However, I believe that he has taken us away from the main issue and I hope that he will not seduce us from it.
The hon. Members who came closest to dealing with the main issue were, in my estimation, the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). They underlined the fact that this is a House of Commons occasion. We are not seeking vindictively to punish an individual Member who might have done things that he now, to some degree, repents. We are talking about upholding the authority of the Chair because whoever occupies the Chair, it protects all hon. Members. We are also underlining the importance of the two red lines on the floor of the Chamber that we see every time we come in here. They symbolise the fact that here we should seek to solve our differences by argument and persuasion, not by other means.
A total of 37 of my hon. Friends and I know what it is like to be in a minority this week, and it is for the protection of minorities, above all, that the rules and procedures of the House have been devised. It is important that every hon. Member should have the opportunity to express his opinions, however objectionable those opinions might be to his colleagues. However, it is not up to any hon. Member to usurp or desecrate the authority of the House or to challenge the Chair and, in so doing, to do the gravest disservice that he can possibly do to his constituency and those who sent him here to represent their interests.
I accept entirely the generous words that were uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who, in three weeks' time will have the good fortune to pair with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). I do not wish to repudiate what he said. I say this in no spirit of personal recrimination, but if the House does not unite behind the Chair and in support of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it will have abdicated its authority. We need a united House behind you, Mr. Speaker, because of what is at stake.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: In supporting the motion, may I point out that my background is the trade union movement and local government. On no occasion in the trade union movement or in my service in local government would the kind of behaviour that we are considering have been allowed. It is all right for some hon. Members to talk about the rules of the club, but those rules sometimes work in favour of Privy Councillors, who are called to speak before Back Benchers such as myself.
I take exception to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and other hon. Members who may have been removed from the House saying that they are the only ones who care about unemployment and the poor. Like other Back Benchers, I have to take my chance on being called to speak. I have not had an opportunity tonight to speak about the poll tax, which will affect people in Scotland before it affects people south of the border—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the order this day.

The House divided: Ayes 463, Noes 27.

Division No. 270]
[11.46 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Alton, David
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashton, Joe
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Batiste, Spencer
Clelland, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Margaret
Coleman, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Blair, Tony
Cormack, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cox, Tom


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Crowther, Stan


Bowis, John
Cummings, John


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Cunningham, Dr John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Curry, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Darling, Alistair


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bright, Graham
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Day, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Devlin, Tim


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dewar, Donald


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Doran, Frank





Dorrell, Stephen
Hill, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hind, Kenneth


Dunn, Bob
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Durant, Tony
Holland, Stuart


Eadie, Alexander
Holt, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Howard, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Emery, Sir Peter
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Faulds, Andrew
Howells, Geraint


Favell, Tony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Fisher, Mark
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Flynn, Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Forman, Nigel
Irvine, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jack, Michael


Forth, Eric
Jackson, Robert


Foster, Derek
Janman, Tim


Foulkes, George
Janner, Greville


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jessel, Toby


Fox, Sir Marcus
John, Brynmor


Franks, Cecil
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Freeman, Roger
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


French, Douglas
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Fry, Peter
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Gale, Roger
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Gardiner, George
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Kennedy, Charles


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Key, Robert


George, Bruce
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Gill, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Golding, Mrs Llin
Kirkhope, Timothy


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Kirkwood, Archy


Goodlad, Alastair
Knapman, Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Gorst, John
Knowles, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Knox, David


Gow, Ian
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lang, Ian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Latham, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Gregory, Conal
Leadbitter, Ted


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Lee, John (Pendle)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Grist, Ian
Lewis, Terry


Ground, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Grylls, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Livsey, Richard


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Lord, Michael


Hannam, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Hardy, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
McCartney, Ian


Harman, Ms Harriet
McCrea, Rev William


Harris, David
McCrindle, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Hawkins, Christopher
McFall, John


Hayes, Jerry
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Haynes, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Heddle, John
McLeish, Henry


Henderson, Doug
Maclennan, Robert


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)






McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rogers, Allan


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, Jeff


McWilliam, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Major, Rt Hon John
Rost, Peter


Mans, Keith
Rowe, Andrew


Maples, John
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marland, Paul
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ryder, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Martlew, Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maxton, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sheerman, Barry


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Michael, Alun
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Miller, Hal
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Iain
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sims, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moate, Roger
Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morley, Elliott
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Soley, Clive


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Mowlam, Marjorie
Speller, Tony


Murphy, Paul
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neubert, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steinberg, Gerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


O'Brien, William
Stevens, Lewis


O'Neill, Martin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stokes, John


Paice, James
Stott, Roger


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Straw, Jack


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Sumberg, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Summerson, Hugo


Pawsey, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Portillo, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Raffan, Keith
Thorne, Neil


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tracey, Richard


Reid, Dr John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Richardson, Jo
Turner, Dennis


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridsdale, Sir Jullan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Vaz, Keith


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robertson, George
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George





Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wilshire, David


Wallace, James
Wilson, Brian


Waller, Gary
Winnick, David


Walley, Joan
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Wareing, Robert N.
Wood, Timothy


Warren, Kenneth
Worthington, Tony


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Ray
Younger, Rt Hon George


Widdecombe, Ann


Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. David Maclean.


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Dlane
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Marlow, Tony


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Nellist, Dave


Clay, Bob
Parry, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Wall, Pat


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Heffer, Eric S.



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Harry Cohen and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr. Ron Brown be suspended from the service of the House for twenty sitting days, and be held responsible for the damage that was sustained by the Mace.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Maternity Services

Mr. John McAllion: I beg to present a petition on behalf of more than 200 midwives and mothers from Dundee who are calling on the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members kindly leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. McAllion: Those midwives and mothers are calling on the House to face the facts about the crisis in the country's maternity services—[interruption.] caused by the Government's underfunding of the Health Service in general—[Interruption.] and the maternity service—[Interruption.]

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Words are being used by Opposition Members such as louse, coward and philistine. I ask you to ask the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw those unparliamentary terms.

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members below the Gangway and elsewhere are not interested in the petition, will they kindly leave the Chamber while we get on with the business of the House?

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Eric Forth: Go, go.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has done enough damage today to the reputation of the House without telling me and others how to behave.
I distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who is standing beyond the Bar refer to some of us who abstained, having listened to all the debate—[Interruption.] Yes, we listened to all the debate—as lacking moral courage. Anyone who says that is beneath contempt. If I used words such as louse, and they are unparliamentary, I would withdraw them.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your powers to censure people who will not come into the Chamber from the outer precincts of the House and who use that situation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the whole House in the aftermath of the debate we have just had that I hope that behaviour in this Chamber will proceed in good order. I was listening to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who was raising his petition. I was not listening to what was going on beyond the Gangway. I call Mr. John McAllion.

Mr. McAllion: If the right hon Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) wishes to display moral courage, perhaps he will stay behind and lend his support to the 300 midwives and mothers in Dundee who call upon this House to face the facts about the crisis in the country's Health Service and in particular in the maternity services.
The petition further calls upon the Commons to support the Royal College of Midwives in calling upon the Government to provide the funding that will remove the risk to mothers and babies that at present exists. I heartily commend this petition to the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Rating Reform

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I beg to present a petition against the poll tax in Scotland which was gathered at the Springburn shopping centre. There are at least 1,500 signatures, including that of my wife, Mary. I can assure the House that no one at Springburn shopping centre refused to sign the petition when asked. That shows that there is absolutely no support for the poll tax in Scotland. I have pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Residential Care and Nursing Homes (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. William McKelvey: I much appreciate this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the importance of the subject for debate tonight. While I agree that many elderly people are living contented and satisfied lives in residential and nursing homes, we have evidence that many others are spending years in drab and boring hospital institutions that offer little prospect for privacy and dignity in advancing years.
Many elderly people become confused and upset when they are uprooted to other types of houses or hospitals as their infirmity advances. The proposal we are debating tonight is that all elderly people in care and in accommodation in Scotland should be subject to some form of registration, and that such registration should cover all providers of care for the elderly, including local authorities, health boards, owners of private homes, and voluntary organisations.
I am aware that a system of sorts operates in England and Wales, but the legislation underpinning it is merely a consolidation of various practices and legal obligations that have grown with time. That system contains numerous pitfalls that I hope we might escape in Scotland. We have a golden opportunity to learn from those mistakes, so that we can and will create a legislative framework that will take us into the 21st century, with a clear vision of our obligations to the growing numbers of elderly in our communities and our ability to meet them.
Registration should be a means of demanding that universal standards apply to all settings in which the elderly live permanently. It must include regular inspections to ensure that standards are maintained, as is outlined in paragraph 6 of the Griffiths report and in paragraph 30 of the Wagner report.
I suggest that the registration body should have to be made up of experts in health, housing and social services, perhaps also including a representative from a national organisation such as Age Concern, which does such magnificent work on behalf of the elderly. I earnestly believe that such a body should have a degree of autonomy, with experts seconded from such major organisations. A multi-disciplinary body such as this is more likely to be able to take enforcement action which a single authority might find itself reluctant to take because of the consequent responsibility for homelessness which the most extreme action may require.
Demographic trends show a significant and advancing increase in the number of people over the age of 75, and an even greater increase in the number who—thankfully—are living beyond the age of 85. The latter are more likely to be physically and/or mentally frail. They are more likely to be single or widowed, and hence to live alone. They are also more likely, as the records show, to have poor housing and a low income. They are thus more likely to need proper residential care.
The task is a large one, and it is growing extremely fast. Indeed, outwith my constituency, in Ayrshire alone, the increase in homes for the elderly is already quite stunning.


In 1980 there were just 200 places; now there are 1,400. Registration is therefore essential to ensure universal and adequate conditions.
The registration must have as its purpose the requirement to meet basic human needs. The need for food, shelter, warmth, personal space, autonomy and identity are, as I am sure most hon. Members will agree, fundamental, and are not diminished with advancing age. Indeed, the reverse is the case.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when he and I and other Ayrshire Members met the Ayrshire and Arran health board, the officers of that board also confirmed their concern about the increase in the number of places for the elderly, and the difficulty of registration in Ayrshire; and that they support the plea that he is putting forward tonight?

Mr. McKelvey: I shall underline that shortly by reading a brief paragraph from a communication that I received from the authority.
Old people should reasonably expect the same standards of accommodation as younger or fit people in their own homes. Indeed, as their universe is often limited to their own surroundings, I feel that it is more important for them to expect and receive a higher standard of accommodation and care. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the elderly fall neatly into set categories requiring less or more care. We are dealing with human beings, not cans of beans. These people cannot be shuttled about in the system as they grow more frail and elderly—or, indeed, become less profitable. That, I feel, should be uppermost in our minds. I consider it unnecessary and, indeed, cruel to shunt elderly people around because of lack of nursing provision. Often such nursing care may take only a short time to perform, and it is less often in any sense intensive.
If a residential home becomes overburdened with frail and elderly people at the extreme end of dependency, the level of nursing care for that home should be increased correspondingly. That raises two important issues which I am sure have already been brought to the Minister's attention: the assessment of need for nursing care, and the knotty problem of finance. Age Concern has researched all those issues thoroughly, and has come to the sensible conclusion that full health and social assessment should be undertaken before any elderly person enters any type of residential care, and should continue at regular intervals thereafter—that is most important—for each resident. In that way, the owners or authorities concerned are able to assess requirements, and detect any deterioration or indeed improvement in condition, and are able to plan resources accordingly.
Assessment takes place in some areas of residential care, particularly in local authority and health board homes and hospitals. Some private nursing homes, to their credit, have also undertaken this form of assessment. The problem is that it is piecemeal and that, when it takes place, some things, particularly social considerations, may be completely ignored or overlooked. That is why I suggest that a multi-disciplinary body, much like that previously suggested for registration, should be set up to assess all potential and permanent residents in all types of

accommodation. Such a body could consist of health workers, social workers and housing experts and include an advocate to speak on the residents' behalf.
Nursing care costs money—everyone knows that—and it is likely that fees will increase as the need for nursing care increases beyond a certain point. That must be made clear to residents or their representatives on entering residential accommodation, and the means to do that should be an initial contract with the resident and any subsidising authority. Such a contract is essential to ensuring that residents are not unduly worried by rising fees that are not agreed by the subsidising authority.
This problem has already caused considerable concern to residents and their families in my constituency. A lady came to see me who was concerned about the care for her mother in a residential home. She had been gazumped. Two months before the new prices were to be announced by the DHSS, the owners of the home demanded another £10 a week—or else. They even went so far as to suggest that the £9·25 that the person received on behalf of her mother—she was on social security and got £34—should be handed over to the home to help to pay. I am glad to say that, following my intervention, the matter was conveniently dropped. The lady is now staying in the home and will receive the additional benefits.
This subject has been debated in Ayrshire in a lively way, and I shall refer to some of the organisations that have contacted me about it. The Ayrshire and Arran health board—

Mr. John McAllion: Just before my hon. Friend mentions the agencies that have supported him, may I draw his attention—he may not know of it—to the early-day motion tabled in my name and those of other of my hon. Friends, which will appear for the first time on the Order Paper tomorrow? It reflects the case of Age Concern Scotland for charge in this respect, and has attracted the support of 107 hon. Members.

Mr. McKelvey: That is splendid news. I am sure that the Minister will have noticed it and will forward it to the relevant Minister for consideration.
The Ayrshire and Arran health board has said that nursing homes are identifying and meeting the need. That is correct. It also states:
Popular areas like Ayrshire attract many many residents from other parts of Scotland which in turn can create—and will create—demands on the National Health Service in Ayrshire for which the Board is not presently funded. It also creates real problems in relation to nurse recruitment and retention for both the public and private sectors.
There has already been an increase from 200 to 1,400 beds.
David Watts, a local practitioner on the Ayrshire and Arran local medical committee, has seen for himself the difficulties and unfair load placed on the backs of general practitioners because of the rapid growth in the number of homes in Ayrshire. He states:
Nursing homes require nurses and there s a finite pool of nurses in Ayrshire. At present the Health Board employs about 1,900 registered nurses and the nursing homes, who are always advertising for staff, employ 190. If uncontrolled growth is allowed to continue we will experience a nursing crisis.
The second area of concern relates to the impact of private nursing homes on the workload of general practice. No account is taken of the ability of local general practitioners 1.o cope with the extra workload and the consequence is that homes open and discover the local doctors are reluctant to accept the residents onto their lists of patients because they feel unable to cope with the increased demand.
I have received a letter from Martin Kuhn, who is a nurse in a geriatric hospital at the sharp end of the problem. None of us envies his working conditions and his job requires the utmost devotion. He has brought to my attention the fact that at its annual conference the Royal College of Nursing will debate the following motion:
That this meeting of the Royal College of Nursing congress requests council to urge the Government to establish a national, trained inspectorate to monitor standards of nursng care in all private nursing and residential homes in the United Kingdom.
The largest nursing union in this country is concerned about the growing problem mentioned in that motion.
Those who devote all their time to the care of the elderly in the National Health Service know that the elderly and frail are being shunted down to them as they become less profitable to private hospitals. That does not lead to an atmosphere that is conducive to good working practices.
Age Concern Scotland—in its document "The Case for Change"—says that the distinction between residential care homes and nursing homes providing long-term care should be abandoned as they are no longer useful or appropriate to today's standards. They have written to the Minister along those lines and are still awaiting a reply. I am indebted to Mary Marshall of Age Concern Scotland for her work, which she brings to the attention of hon. Members.
I have received many letters from Elizabeth Reid of Kilmarnock, who works on behalf of carers. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that last year the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government spent £450 million on private residential care. That is a large sum of money and much profit has been made by those who run private residential homes. Elizabeth Reid says that many people would prefer to keep their elderly relatives at home. She thinks—I am sure that this will happen—that all carers should write to their Members of Parliament asking the Government to change the law so that invalid care allowance is made a free benefit and so that carers are not pressed further into the poverty trap. If half that £450 million were to be transferred to carers, untouched by benefit subtractions, the Government might improve the fate of our elderly and frail people who, despite being happy in residential homes, would prefer to stay at home if they were not a burden to the rest of the family.
I thank everybody who has written to me about this subject. The matters raised by Age Concern Scotland and the Griffiths report provide us with the criteria to meet the needs of the growing number of elderly people in Scotland. My earnest hope is that their proposals can be transformed into legislation sooner rather than later. I feel that we owe our elderly people the right to live a proper and dignified life in their latter years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon (Mr. McKelvey) on his success in the ballot and his concern in raising this important subject. I join him in paying tribute to the work of Age Concern. Perhaps I could reassure him that I did reply to Miss Marshall on 12 February in response to the booklet and advised her that it would not be possible for us to offer views on the recommendations until we had had

a chance to consider the recommendations arising from the review by Lady Wagner into the future of residential care and Sir Roy Griffiths's report on care in the community.
Scottish local authorities currently provide around 60 per cent. of all residential places for elderly persons and other adult groups, comprising some 11,000 places, while the voluntary sector provides around 6,000 places and the private sector approximately 2,400. This is a rather different picture from that which exists in England and Wales where places are divided fairly evenly between the independent and statutory sectors and over two thirds of the independent places are provided by the private sector. Because of the larger private sector, the total number of homes, and places in homes, is considerably greater in England and Wales in relative terms.
Long-stay nursing homes are provided mainly by the private sector. In 1979 there were 77 registered nursing homes containing 2,612 beds. By 1987 the number of homes had increased to 164 with 5,063 beds. Of those, about 700 beds were in establishments offering acute hospital facilities. The major growth however is in the long-stay sector. While information setting out the position at March 1988 is not yet to hand, signs are that the increase has continued.
The number of homes and the total number of places available in residential homes has risen relatively slowly in the past 10 years or so. But the fact is that we have in Scotland a higher proportion of elderly persons in long-term hospital care than in England and Wales and considerable unmet demands for residential care as witnessed by the weight of pending applications.
I am in no doubt that a considerably enlarged residential care sector is desirable in Scotland, not necessarily in the traditional mould of residential homes, though accommodation of this kind is recognised as having a continuing and important role in the care of the elderly. One aspect of this need is the high proportion of elderly, mentally handicapped and mentally ill persons, who are inappropriately placed in long-stay hospital accommodation.
The current Scottish position in this regard suggests not merely ineffective use of resources on relatively expensive hospital care but a failure to meet the likely needs and preferences of the persons concerned in many cases. There are, for example, currently twice as many occupied beds in geriatric hospitals in Scotland as in England, and the figures for patients in mental illness and the psychiatric hospitals are not very different. Even with the new emphasis on domiciliary care, there is a real risk of a greater imbalance between hospital and community as the size of the very elderly population continues to rise.
Local authorities cannot realistically plead for more resources when they are not making the best use of the opportunities that are available, at very little cost to themselves, through the private sector. There is evidence now that some at least are beginning to grasp the opportunities available. I see no inherent contradiction between the encouragement of the private sector and proper control of standards. There are indeed plenty of examples of better, more responsive, services resulting in this way for elderly persons and others in need of care in a residential setting.
In this sphere as in so many others, competition between the public and the private sectors can lead to


greater choice for the individual consumer and enable the local authority to spread its own resources for care in the community more widely.
I would not wish to dwell solely on the potential contribution of the private sector. Indeed, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector which has served Scotland so well for many years and remains, meanwhile at least, the principal source of independently provided accommodation.
It is our view that a well-regulated independent sector has an important and significant role to play in the provision of residential care. Such provision is an important part of the Government's strategy of care in the community for the more vulnerable members of society, including the physically and mentally disabled and particularly the frail elderly whose numbers are growing steadily and will continue to grow.
Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, responsibility for the control and monitoring of independent residential care and nursing homes rests with the local authority and health board respectively. Registration is not concerned purely with physical standards. It is also about residents experiencing a good quality of life and enabling them to maintain as much personal independence and dignity as possible. Sound local authority practice and procedures relating to the registration and inspection of establishments are crucial if acceptable standards of care are to be maintained.
The 1968 Act requires that residential establishments whose sole or main object is the provision of social work care require to be registered with the local authority. These arrangements apply to all client groups, including children. Authorities can refuse or cancel registration if they consider the person operating the establishment or person employed as a manager is not a "fit person", if the building, its fitments or staffing are not fit for the purposes intended, or if the conduct of the establishment is not deemed to be, or likely to be, such as to provide the services required. Persons who are aggrieved by refusal or cancellation of registration may appeal to an independent tribunal. In the 20 years since these provisions have been in force we have had only one such appeal in Scotland, and that did not relate to standards of care.
Local authorities have a duty under the 1968 Act to inspect establishments which they have registered and have appropriate powers of entry.

Mr. McKelvey: I ask the Minister to consider two points. First, I am not surprised that there are not a great number of complaints about the system, because those who use it are often bullied and are too frightened to complain. If they did, they would be put out on the streets.
Secondly, the Minister has not responded to my suggestion that there ought to be a multi-disciplinary body. Both Griffiths and Wagner have concluded that that ought to be the means whereby residential homes are monitored.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of the kind of practice that he has just described, I should like to see it. We are still considering the Griffiths report recommendations. We shall also consider very carefully the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has put to us. The evidence that is available to the Scottish Office shows that the standards of care are good, in the main, and that the

local authorities have powers that they can use, but it seems that it has been unnecessary to use them to maintain standards of care.
Local authorities have a duty under the 1968 Act to inspect establishments that they have registered, and they have powers of entry.

Mr. McKelvey: One of the problems that local authorities face is that if they close an institution all that they do is to put the inhabitants out into the street and the community has to take care of them. Therefore, they are very reluctant to use such an extreme measure.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of homes that local authorities wish to close because of inadequate standards but are not doing so. I should like to see it. He is saying that they are not using their powers because they would be unable to provide alternative accommodation. I said earlier that we wish to encourage the wider provision of accommodation in the private sector to meet these demands.
The provisions that I have described were strengthened during the last Parliament by a measure introduced on the Government's behalf by my former hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan which became the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987. It is relevant to the debate that I remind the House of the provisions of that Act. It enables local authorities to charge fees for the registration and subsequent monitoring and inspection of establishments, as has been done in England and Wales since 1985.
The Act extends authorities' powers to impose any reasonable conditions of registration, subject to the opportunity given to the home owner to appeal to the tribunal. That enhances authorities' control over establishments registrable with them to a greater degree than is available in the south. Here we meet the point which the hon. Gentleman made about elderly people having to move from one home to another. The Act also introduces the concept of joint registration of establishments, providing both residential and nursing care in contrast to the existing legislation which neither explicitly permits nor forbids this practice.
The measure as a whole was welcomed by the statutory, voluntary and private sectors alike. We are on the point of issuing a consultation paper outlining our proposals on the level of fees which local authorities will be allowed to charge for registrations.
The hon. Gentleman is legitimately concerned about the arrangements for regulating standards in both residential care homes and nursing homes. The first essential, I believe, is that homes of both kinds suitable in location, design, construction, furnishing and equipment should be operated by persons who are suitable for the task, have proper training and experience and have sufficient, carefully chosen and suitably trained staff at their command.
As I have said, responsibility for the registration and inspection of voluntary and private homes rests with local authorities. Authorities are accountable for the actions they take in the exercise of these responsibilities, and may in the last resort have to defend their decision to refuse or withdraw registration before an appeal tribunal. In that situation they must be free to exercise their discretion, and detailed prescription by the Secretary of State regarding the exercise of their functions could not be justified.
In exercising the discretion available to them, local authorities will need to have particular regard to the physical and care standards in their own homes. It would clearly be unacceptable to have different standards in the independent and statutory sectors. The duty of care that they owe to their own residents is, if anything, greater than that they can discharge in regard to those in the care of others.
I trust that the hon. Member is satisfied with the assurance I have given regarding the regulation of standards in private and voluntary residential care in nursing homes in Scotland, and the measures currently taken to secure the best interests of residents in care. If the hon. Member—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.